Warrior General Games

Originally posted by w_alloy

Sweet... Please keep going back to your lone examples (Garcia, Brees, Flutie) of short guys that have had successful NFL careers... Guys that succeed DESPITE their height, and are once in a decade type of players... They also succeed because they had quick drops or great mobility which helped to mask their deficiency in height...

The best part though, is you're asking me to find quarterbacks that failed because they were short... That's like asking me to find centers that failed because they were under 6'9"... Let me give you another scholastic term... Supply and demand. Nobody wants short QB's, so unless they're truly special talents, they don't get a shot... and there's a reason for that.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you just made that argument. This is exactly what I mean about learning to shut your mouth after you've said something dumb. Instead you got defensive and managed to make yourself look even more ridiculous. Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning are the same height. According to you, they both should have succeeded because of that.

Originally posted by Deathblade
I suppose this depends on what exactly you mean, but by the conventional definition I think you're wrong. Pike would be a safer pick, but he's also not going to get much better than he is right now.

did you just try to confuse me by not making sense?

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by w_alloy


Sweet... Please keep going back to your lone examples (Garcia, Brees, Flutie) of short guys that have had successful NFL careers... Guys that succeed DESPITE their height, and are once in a decade type of players... They also succeed because they had quick drops or great mobility which helped to mask their deficiency in height...

The best part though, is you're asking me to find quarterbacks that failed because they were short... That's like asking me to find centers that failed because they were under 6'9"... Let me give you another scholastic term... Supply and demand. Nobody wants short QB's, so unless they're truly special talents, they don't get a shot... and there's a reason for that.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe you just made that argument. This is exactly what I mean about learning to shut your mouth after you've said something dumb. Instead you got defensive and managed to make yourself look even more ridiculous. Ryan Leaf and Peyton Manning are the same height. According to you, they both should have succeeded because of that.


And please show me where I said the only reason Manning was great was due to his height... It clearly AIDS in his abilities but it isn't the single most important factor... Nobody is saying height is the most important asset to a QB, but clearly it has an impact... As far as to what extent it matters, I would place it in the top 10 of factors determining a QB's abilities to succeed.. You put it where? Outside of the top 86? That's what's making your argument look ridiculous. Your saying it pretty much makes no difference at all, and it does.

Originally posted by blln4lyf
And please show me where I said the only reason Manning was great was due to his height... It clearly AIDS in his abilities but it isn't the single most important factor... Nobody is saying height is the most important asset to a QB, but clearly it has an impact... As far as to what extent it matters, I would place it in the top 10 of factors determining a QB's abilities to succeed.. You put it where? Outside of the top 86? That's what's making your argument look ridiculous. Your saying it pretty much makes no difference at all, and it does.

That analysis is not "sound," and saying that height being a "huge plus" for quarterbacks has been "historically proven" is just compounding your rampage of constant idiocy. If you don't understand what I was saying about correlation not implying causation, then please just ask for me to explain it in a different way. You can't argue that the study you linked "proves" that height causes better performance without also saying that the same statistics "prove" that being black hurts quarterback performance. Is that what you want to argue? Does being black make someone a worse quarterback? No, because it's not height or skin color that is affecting the statistical output. It's the sample size. There are relatively few "short" quarterbacks in the NFL, which means that including Rex Grossman's numbers in the average gives them a greater weight.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by blln4lyf

And please show me where I said the only reason Manning was great was due to his height... It clearly AIDS in his abilities but it isn't the single most important factor... Nobody is saying height is the most important asset to a QB, but clearly it has an impact... As far as to what extent it matters, I would place it in the top 10 of factors determining a QB's abilities to succeed.. You put it where? Outside of the top 86? That's what's making your argument look ridiculous. Your saying it pretty much makes no difference at all, and it does.

That analysis is not "sound," and saying that height being a "huge plus" for quarterbacks has been "historically proven" is just compounding your rampage of constant idiocy. If you don't understand what I was saying about correlation not implying causation, then please just ask for me to explain it in a different way. You can't argue that the study you linked "proves" that height causes better performance without also saying that the same statistics "prove" that being black hurts quarterback performance. Is that what you want to argue? Does being black make someone a worse quarterback? No, because it's not height or skin color that is affecting the statistical output. It's the sample size. There are relatively few "short" quarterbacks in the NFL, which means that including Rex Grossman's numbers in the average gives them a greater weight.

Let me try your argumentative style.

You're wrong. You're a moron. You're clueless. Better?

I enjoy your attempts to try to skew everything said to meet your point, but it's coming up short. Highlighting a point made directly in front of your point that it would rank somewhere around 86th in the list of relevant attributes for a QB pretty much proves that.

When I say "Huge" and then say it's somewhere near the bottom half of the top 10, I'd say that means it's still pretty important, and it is...

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Let me try your argumentative style.

You're wrong. You're a moron. You're clueless. Better?

I enjoy your attempts to try to skew everything said to meet your point, but it's coming up short. Highlighting a point made directly in front of your point that it would rank somewhere around 86th in the list of relevant attributes for a QB pretty much proves that.

When I say "Huge" and then say it's somewhere near the bottom half of the top 10, I'd say that means it's still pretty important, and it is...

That was a remarkably stupid thing to say, and you know it. You need to swallow your pride and stop posting before you embarrass yourself any further. Calling Tony Pike's height "a huge plus" was obviously dumb. Pike being 6'6: is not "huge plus." It's better than being 5'6" or even 6'0", but at the end of the day height is far down the list of importance in terms of things that help to complete passes at the NFL level. That's the point, and it should have ended there.

Originally posted by jktooley
did you just try to confuse me by not making sense?

This coming from the guy who said that Tony Pike "has a cannon"? By all means, check around the internet to see what the sites say about that assertion. The reality is that you're utterly clueless and you need to sulk quietly after being exposed as a know-nothing, rather than getting defensive and making things worse by continuing to run your mouth. I apologize for continuing to bring up my profession, but in fantasy football circles I am known as something of an expert on projecting how college QBs will fare in the NFL. My record at doing so over the last seven years is exemplary, and it's partly because I spend so much time analyzing the position. I know what makes a good quarterback, and height isn't it. Saying that being tall is "a huge plus" made you look ridiculous. Suck it up and move on.

holy shit me... I'll go back to COD now

Originally posted by jktooley
holy shit me... I'll go back to COD now

I know. We've already established that you're completely clueless about what attributes influence quarterback success.

Vick 6ft
Brunell 6ft
Theismann 6'1"
Favre 6 2"
Brees 6
romo 6'2"



jamarcus russell 6'6"
Leaf 6' 5"

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by jktooley

holy shit me... I'll go back to COD now

I know. We've already established that you're completely clueless about what attributes influence quarterback success.

That's not a simple mistake or a matter of disagreement, it shows a fundamental level of ignorance. To make a statement like that shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

thread finally got good

Originally posted by jktooley
thread finally got good


I'm pretty sure he was referring to you.

Originally posted by PLAYMAKERS
Vick 6ft

Exactly what purpose does listing a mediocre QB of middling height serve?

He doesn't prove that height is important, or that height is unimportant. He adds nothing to the discussion.

Good day.

i'm not having a discussion on height.

i hadn't even ever heard of tony pike until today

i have heard of john skelton who looked like a good prospect to me and todd reesing

all i care about is if you can throw the ball to the player with the same colored jersey.

if i owned an nfl team i would trade all my draft picks for Bradford because he's a machine and has superstar franchise stud written all over him.