(10-07-2015, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  This was his exact quote....

That's odd. I noticed that he made a blanket statement right off the bat, and then made an entirely different argument afterwards. Two separate points.

Like I said, which is a fact...his first statement has been proven to be incorrect. Do you disagree? We can argue his second point after if you'd like.

(10-07-2015, 12:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I knew exactly what Joelist was talking about.  Ron Jaworski claimed Kaepernick was going to be the greatest QB in history.  ESPN practically worshipped Tim Tebow.  Robert Griffen was taken second in the draft.  All of these QBs were called great because they were supposedly "duel threat QBs".  Experts tried to claim that their running ability would make up for what they lacked in passing ability, but they were wrong.

Uhhhh, sure. That's a great arguing tactic that your kind likes to employ.

If you point out only the failures, of course it's going to make your argument "right".

Why not point out the dual threat QBs that have been successful, instead of focusing the attention on only the ones that have failed?

Russell Wilson has thrown more passes out of the pocket and has had more rushing attempts than anyone you've named. He's the exact definition of a dual threat QB whether you or Joelist will admit that or not.

(10-07-2015, 12:19 PM)djs7685 Wrote: That's odd. I noticed that he made a blanket statement right off the bat, and then made an entirely different argument afterwards. Two separate points.

Like I said, which is a fact...his first statement has been proven to be incorrect. Do you disagree? We can argue his second point after if you'd like.

it was not two separate statements.  It was statement with a modifier.  The modifier made it clear what he meant.

If I say "It is not okay to kill people unless they are attacking you." do you consider that two statements or one?  I have never made that statement and then have someone attack me for saying it is okay to kill people because "that was my EXACT statement".

In order for it to be an "exact" statement you have to include all the information in the statement.

I still get nervous every time he dives head first with no one around him, lol

(10-07-2015, 12:19 PM)djs7685 Wrote: That's odd. I noticed that he made a blanket statement right off the bat, and then made an entirely different argument afterwards. Two separate points.

Like I said, which is a fact...his first statement has been proven to be incorrect. Do you disagree? We can argue his second point after if you'd like.

Dude just stop. You like to catch people making dumb statements. I get it. Most people seem to get what he was saying. He wasn't making an "entirely different argument after the fact", he was simply elaborating after you came at him ready to tee off.

(10-07-2015, 12:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Why not point out the dual threat QBs that have been successful, instead of focusing the attention on only the ones that have failed?

Because if you look at his EXACT statement you will see that he excluded QBs who could throw from the pocket.  

He was only talking about times when experts claim that a guy who can not throw from the pocket will be great because he is a "duel threat".  And that is exactly what has happened with a lot of guys like Keapernick, Tebow, Vince Young, RG3, etc.

(10-07-2015, 12:30 PM)fr edtoast Wrote: it was not two separate statements.  It was statement with a modifier.  The modifier made it clear what he meant.

If I say "It is not okay to kill people unless they are attacking you." do you consider that two statements or one?  I have never made that statement and then have someone attack me for saying it is okay to kill people because "that was my EXACT statement".

In order for it to be an "exact" statement you have to include all the information in the statement.

You're missing the point. The example you just gave is completely different than what was said by Joelist.

"The whole "dual threat" QB is a fad that enraptures sportscasters and such but does not translate into championships. Note what happens when defenses adjust; unless the QB in question is also a true QB (in other words works effectively from the pocket) they do not prosper."

The wording on this is very poor. If you put the entire thing together and use the "modifier" as you claim it should be read, it's essentially saying, "the whole dual threat QB is a fad and doesn't translate to championships if you only talk about the shitty dual threat QBs."

I guess that makes sense, but the choice of wording is awful on this. Why even say that dual threat QBs are a fad if you're just going to qualify it with only the dual threat QBs that can't throw the ball very well? Obviously ANY QB that can't throw very well isn't going to be considered good at a position where you have to throw the ball to be successful. That goes for more than just dual threat QBs. Any QB that can't throw isn't going to win many championships. Uhhh...congrats for pointing that out? Is that what you wanted here? A pat on the back for pointing out that shitty QBs are shitty?? Good job, guys.

Andy was a better runner in college than Wilson.

(10-07-2015, 12:42 PM)djs7685 Wrote:  Obviously ANY QB that can't throw very well isn't going to be considered good at a position where you have to throw the ball to be successful.

Then why did Jaws say that Kaepernick could be the greatest of all time?

Why did so many people worship Tebow?

Why were RG3 and Vince Young considered franchise QBs?

People were enamored with them because they thought their running ability could make up for their lack of skill in the pocket.

(10-07-2015, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why did Jaws say that Kaepernick could be the greatest of all time?

Why did so many people worship Tebow?

Why were RG3 and Vince Young considered franchise QBs?

People were enamored with them because they thought their running ability could make up for their lack of skill in the pocket.

I'll make sure to post something like "short WRs aren't very good unless they're actually good!" in the next thread about WRs, and we'll see if you along with everybody else agrees and nobody argues with me about that statement or thinks that it sounds stupid for me to say that.

Yes Fred, the dual threat QBs that aren't very good, aren't very good. The other ones that we're ignoring in this thread are good though, and dual threat QBs can win championships.

(10-06-2015, 05:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since 2011 Cam Newton leads all NFL QBs in rushing tds with 35.  Andy Dalton and Andrew Luck are tied for second with 12 each.

Dalton is also 6th in rushing attempts by a QB, and 11th in rushing yards.


I realize that Kaepernick, Wilson, and Luck have played a lot fewer games than Dalton, but I don't care.  This is my thread and I will spin it anyway I want.

Just as an aside, Kenny Anderson all QBs in rushing yards in 1981 with 320 yards. He was in his 11th season.

(10-07-2015, 01:41 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I'll make sure to post something like "short WRs aren't very good unless they're actually good!" in the next thread about WRs, and we'll see if you along with everybody else agrees and nobody argues with me about that statement or thinks that it sounds stupid for me to say that.

Be sure to cite all of the experts and fans who claim they would be great because they were short.


Way to miss the point.  No one claims a WR will overcome other weaknesses because he is short they way they do with QBs who can run.

(10-07-2015, 02:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Be sure to cite all of the experts and fans who claim they would be great because they were short.


Way to miss the point.  No one claims a WR will overcome other weaknesses because he is short they way they do with QBs who can run.

Way to miss the point. I'm sure there are plenty of WRs that experts and fans have said they will be great despite their height, the same as experts and fans have said that some QBs can be great despite their lack of great pocket accuracy.

Not every prediction is going to be right, please don't forget that.

Also, Cam Newton and Russell Wilson are both good to great QBs despite being dual threats, which is apparently something that's frowned upon by you and others. Dual threat =/= bad QB. RW isn't the best pocket passer in the world, but he's surely one hell of a QB.

(10-07-2015, 02:07 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Just as an aside, Kenny Anderson all QBs in rushing yards in 1981 with 320 yards. He was in his 11th season.

Thanks for bringing this discussin bakc to the original point.  Anderson is one of the most underrated "dual threat" QBs of all time.

Anderson is one of only 7 QBs in NFL history with 2,000 yards rushing and 30,000 yards passing.

Since 1960 only 23 QBs have rushed for more the 2000 yards.  Among those 23 Anderson's 5.6 avg per carry ranks 9th, ahead of such famous running QBs as Cam Newton, Steve McNair, Roger Staubach, Fran Tarkenton, and John Elway.

(10-07-2015, 02:35 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Way to miss the point. I'm sure there are plenty of WRs that experts and fans have said they will be great despite their height, the same as experts and fans have said that some QBs can be great despite their lack of great pocket accuracy.

False equivalence.

No one ever says that a QB will be great because he can not throw from the pocket.  You are trying to compare a negative "not tall" to a positive "able to run" and then flip-flopping the claim of causation.

(10-07-2015, 02:35 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Also, Cam Newton and Russell Wilson are both good to great QBs despite being dual threats, which is apparently something that's frowned upon by you and others. Dual threat =/= bad QB. RW isn't the best pocket passer in the world, but he's surely one hell of a QB.

Strawman.

I never said the ability to run makes a QB bad.




Congratulations on using two logical fallacies in just one post.

(10-07-2015, 02:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Strawman.

No one here said the ability to run makes a QB bad.




Congratulations on using two logical fallacies in just one post.

Uhhhhh.....

"The whole "dual threat" QB is a fad that enraptures sportscasters and such but does not translate into championships."

Have fun with your dumb thread, Freddy. I'm not going to go back around this circle with you. This is the last I'm explaining this. Someone claimed that dual threat QBs are just a fad and they don't win championships. Russell Wilson is a dual threat QB. Russel Wilson won a championship recently. End of story.

Oh, and for the love of whichever god you believe in, can you please learn the difference between "duel" and "dual"??? FFS, you're supposed to be educated, right?

(10-07-2015, 02:49 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Oh, and for the love of whichever god you believe in, can you please learn the difference between "duel" and "dual"??? FFS, you're supposed to be educated, right?

I let spell check fix my typos.


Too bad you don't have a tool to correct your inability to make a logical argument.

(10-07-2015, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I let spell check fix my typos.


Too bad you don't have a tool to correct your inability to make a logical argument.

Too bad you need a tool to spell for you and it doesn't even work properly.

Someone claimed that dual threat QBs are just a fad and they don't win championships. Russell Wilson is a dual threat QB. Russel Wilson won a championship recently. End of story.

(10-07-2015, 03:11 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Too bad you need a tool to spell for you and it doesn't even work properly.

Someone claimed that dual threat QBs are just a fad and they don't win championships. Russell Wilson is a dual threat QB. Russel Wilson won a championship recently. End of story.

(10-07-2015, 02:35 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Also, Cam Newton and Russell Wilson are both good to great QBs despite being dual threats, which is apparently something that's frowned upon by you and others. Dual threat =/= bad QB. RW isn't the best pocket passer in the world, but he's surely one hell of a QB.

I never said this.  That makes it a strawman argument at least in regards to me.



End of story.

(10-07-2015, 03:11 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Too bad you need a tool to spell for you and it doesn't even work properly.

It works when I use it.  But I don't worry about it when everyone knows what I am talking about and understands exactly what i mean.