Saying height doesn't matter is silly... If I would've beaten Wise to the punch I would've laid out the same arguments... Instead; +1
Forum > Pro Leagues > Predict the # of Inaugural WL Teams in WL in S15
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
This isn't really true by a longshot. Preach Brees love all you want, but him and Vick are the only 2 QBs <6'2" in the last decade to make a pro bowl I'm pretty sure.
Actually Jeff Garcia made four Pro Bowls in the last decade, and Doug Flutie made one in '98 if you want to extend back that far. Going back even further, Fran Tarkenton is a Hall of Fame quarterback. Moreover, while he hasn't had much of a chance at the NFL level, Troy Smith won the Heisman despite being fairly short.
Originally posted by
To say that height doesn't matter at a position like QB, is like saying height doesn't matter for a WR...
Were you trying to be funny? Height doesn't matter for a WR. Wes Welker, Reggie Wayne, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith (NYG), DeSean Jackson, and Hines Ward are all six feet or under. That's six out of the top ten in receiving yards this season. Now of course height can be useful for a wide receiver, but to pretend like it's somehow necessary is silly. The same goes for quarterbacks. You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on.
Originally posted by jktooley
Saying height doesn't matter is silly... If I would've beaten Wise to the punch I would've laid out the same arguments... Instead; +1
Saying that someone's height is a "huge plus" is just dumb. If you can't handle that kind of criticism, then don't speak on subjects you're clearly clueless about.
This isn't really true by a longshot. Preach Brees love all you want, but him and Vick are the only 2 QBs <6'2" in the last decade to make a pro bowl I'm pretty sure.
Actually Jeff Garcia made four Pro Bowls in the last decade, and Doug Flutie made one in '98 if you want to extend back that far. Going back even further, Fran Tarkenton is a Hall of Fame quarterback. Moreover, while he hasn't had much of a chance at the NFL level, Troy Smith won the Heisman despite being fairly short.
Originally posted by
To say that height doesn't matter at a position like QB, is like saying height doesn't matter for a WR...
Were you trying to be funny? Height doesn't matter for a WR. Wes Welker, Reggie Wayne, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith (NYG), DeSean Jackson, and Hines Ward are all six feet or under. That's six out of the top ten in receiving yards this season. Now of course height can be useful for a wide receiver, but to pretend like it's somehow necessary is silly. The same goes for quarterbacks. You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on.
Originally posted by jktooley
Saying height doesn't matter is silly... If I would've beaten Wise to the punch I would've laid out the same arguments... Instead; +1
Saying that someone's height is a "huge plus" is just dumb. If you can't handle that kind of criticism, then don't speak on subjects you're clearly clueless about.
Edited by jdbolick on Jan 24, 2010 15:20:28
jktooley
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Saying that someone's height is a "huge plus" is just dumb. If you can't handle that kind of criticism, then don't speak on subjects you're clearly clueless about.
Sounds like good advice... Take it. You pretty much just made Ken1 look intelligent by comparison...
Originally posted by http://bleacherreport.com/articles/147430-the-quarterback-position-does-size-matter
The Quarterback Position: Does Size Matter?
Being a man of perfectly average proportions, the insistence of prototypical height and weight at the quarterback position has always been of grave interest, in a sort of macabre, self loathing sort of way.
We all know the score.
6’4", check. 225 pounds, check. Big hands, check.
Let’s draft him!
Bearing in mind many, many quarterbacks have probably missed out on having a shot at the NFL, purely because of their height, I was wondering, how much difference does it actually make?
Of course, NFL scouts are known for the thorough approach to identifying talent, so putting it all on how tall a guy is probably a bit obtuse, but I think it will be interesting none the less.
Here’s how it works. I’ve grouped every league quarterback (who’s started at least 16 games in the last three years) into the following three groups:
* Tall (6’4" or more)
* Medium (6’2"-6’3")
* Short (6’1" and under)
From there, I’ve calculated their average (per season):
* Pass completion percentage
* Touchdown pass made
* Pick thrown
* Sack given up
* Fumble given up
Next, per player and then per group. Hopefully giving us a good average stat for each height range.
Each group of course contained both the studs (Peyton Manning, Drew Brees) and duds (Joey Harrington, Rex Grossman) of the respective sizes, so we will hopefully get a nice average for each group.
The Findings
Short (6'1" and under): 57.0% completion, 15.3 TDs/10.7 INTs, 23.1 sacks, 7.1 fumbles
Medium (6'2" to 6'3"): 61.2% completion, 18.6 TDs/12.6 INTs, 25.8 sacks, 6.4 fumbles
Tall (6'4" and over): 62.2% completion, 18.6 TDs/11.7 INTs, 28.2 sacks, 8.1 fumbles
Analyzing the numbers
Completion percentage
It’s quite obvious the tall guys held a significant advantage in this particular stat. Although the medium and tall guys had a similar figure, there is a notable disparity between small and tall quarterbacks.
And when you think about it, it's probably quite obvious why. Tall quarterbacks are generally the same height, or taller than, most of their linemen, so they have a cleaner line of sight and better passing lanes.
Also, taller guys can make throws shorter guys simply can't. In terms of arm strength and trajectory.
Peyton Manning throwing a bullet over a lineman’s head, low to the receiver’s ankles—easy. Drew Brees making the same throw—an impossibility. His throw can't possibly start at the required high angle.
High schol trigonometry.
The smaller guys do seem to struggle greatly with passing efficiency. There is also an obvious difference between guys ranging 6' and 6'2", so scouting prejudice seems to be justified.
It seems the minimum height for an efficient quarterback, on average, appears to be 6’2".
Secondly, touchdowns and picks
Again, the medium and large guys had an obvious advantage in terms of the number of six pointers they racked up every year, undoubtedly, because of their size advantage while sitting in the pocket.
It could well be that taller guys see things that the smaller guys don’t. That and the fact that, as above, they can make every throw available. Smaller guys are limited to the types of throws they make.
Jeff Garcia couldn’t throw a flat ball over Jonathon Ogden’s head, for instance.
Funneling though, the smaller guys do hold the higher ground (pardon the pun) in terms of picks thrown—even accounting for Rex Grossman’s average boosting performances.
It could be the flip side to the above point. Smaller guys are limited in the type of throws they make, so possibly they don’t make as many risky shots down the middle.
Another factor being, with their extra mobility, they traditionally don’t stay in the pocket as long, so they make higher percentage, short, flat throws, on the run.
One conclusion could be that sitting in the pocket and throwing over tackles heads, generally gets you more touchdowns, but at the same time, more picks.
In any case, the taller group of players has both the highest average touchdown per season figure, as well as the second lowest pick per season figure, so the fascination with QB height is becoming more and more understandable.
Finally, sacks and fumbles
This is a stat where I expect bigger guys to suffer—and the figures don’t disappoint.
Small guys hold a big advantage over big quarterbacks, in terms of avoiding the blitz—quite obviously because of the extra speed they hold and their ability to use their feet, and avoid the rush.
However, it's not all plain sailing for the pip squeaks. Bearing in mind they get sacked far less than both medium and large groups, they fumble on average about the same as both.
This, for me, tells us that there is a significant weight issue, in terms of holding on to the ball. Big quarterbacks do get sacked more, but they are much better equipped to hold onto the ball when it happens.
In terms of avoiding the rush and holding on to the ball, the medium group of quarterbacks seems to hold the advantage, on the basis that they are a nice mix of both size and speed.
The speed of a Jeff Garcia. The bulk of a Tom Brady.
Not that all big guys are sitting ducks. I was amazed to see that Peyton Manning averaged only 19 sacks and three fumbles per season—better than almost every small quarterback on the list—compared to Brady’s 29 sacks and 10 fumbles per year.
It seems Peyton’s fleet-of-foot is grossly underrated. And Tom isn’t perfect in every aspect of the game. Although, I’m sure Peyton would take a few more hits per game for another ring!
Wrapping it up
I went into this thinking there would be little difference in terms of height and performance.
I went into this wanting to find little difference between height and performance.
I was happy living under the assumption that scouts were just biased towards big guys.
How wrong could I be.
Agreed, it’s a very small, basic study, but I think the numbers reflect why there aren’t more six foot quarterbacks in the league and why they generally slide in drafts.
Statistically, they are going to be less accurate.
Statistically, they are going to give up more fumbles per sack.
Statistically, they aren’t going to hit as many home runs.
Statistically, they are more likely to fail in the league.
Statistically, they are a bigger risk.
I think it also shows us why the average starting quarterback height in the league actually is 6’3.
6’3 is the prototypical height for a quarterback. Big enough to command the pocket. Big enough to make all the throws. Big enough to take a hit. But athletic enough to avoid the rush.
Unless of course, you are Peyton Manning—who seems to have everything.
I don't expect to see you post again on the subject...
Saying that someone's height is a "huge plus" is just dumb. If you can't handle that kind of criticism, then don't speak on subjects you're clearly clueless about.
Sounds like good advice... Take it. You pretty much just made Ken1 look intelligent by comparison...
Originally posted by http://bleacherreport.com/articles/147430-the-quarterback-position-does-size-matter
The Quarterback Position: Does Size Matter?
Being a man of perfectly average proportions, the insistence of prototypical height and weight at the quarterback position has always been of grave interest, in a sort of macabre, self loathing sort of way.
We all know the score.
6’4", check. 225 pounds, check. Big hands, check.
Let’s draft him!
Bearing in mind many, many quarterbacks have probably missed out on having a shot at the NFL, purely because of their height, I was wondering, how much difference does it actually make?
Of course, NFL scouts are known for the thorough approach to identifying talent, so putting it all on how tall a guy is probably a bit obtuse, but I think it will be interesting none the less.
Here’s how it works. I’ve grouped every league quarterback (who’s started at least 16 games in the last three years) into the following three groups:
* Tall (6’4" or more)
* Medium (6’2"-6’3")
* Short (6’1" and under)
From there, I’ve calculated their average (per season):
* Pass completion percentage
* Touchdown pass made
* Pick thrown
* Sack given up
* Fumble given up
Next, per player and then per group. Hopefully giving us a good average stat for each height range.
Each group of course contained both the studs (Peyton Manning, Drew Brees) and duds (Joey Harrington, Rex Grossman) of the respective sizes, so we will hopefully get a nice average for each group.
The Findings
Short (6'1" and under): 57.0% completion, 15.3 TDs/10.7 INTs, 23.1 sacks, 7.1 fumbles
Medium (6'2" to 6'3"): 61.2% completion, 18.6 TDs/12.6 INTs, 25.8 sacks, 6.4 fumbles
Tall (6'4" and over): 62.2% completion, 18.6 TDs/11.7 INTs, 28.2 sacks, 8.1 fumbles
Analyzing the numbers
Completion percentage
It’s quite obvious the tall guys held a significant advantage in this particular stat. Although the medium and tall guys had a similar figure, there is a notable disparity between small and tall quarterbacks.
And when you think about it, it's probably quite obvious why. Tall quarterbacks are generally the same height, or taller than, most of their linemen, so they have a cleaner line of sight and better passing lanes.
Also, taller guys can make throws shorter guys simply can't. In terms of arm strength and trajectory.
Peyton Manning throwing a bullet over a lineman’s head, low to the receiver’s ankles—easy. Drew Brees making the same throw—an impossibility. His throw can't possibly start at the required high angle.
High schol trigonometry.
The smaller guys do seem to struggle greatly with passing efficiency. There is also an obvious difference between guys ranging 6' and 6'2", so scouting prejudice seems to be justified.
It seems the minimum height for an efficient quarterback, on average, appears to be 6’2".
Secondly, touchdowns and picks
Again, the medium and large guys had an obvious advantage in terms of the number of six pointers they racked up every year, undoubtedly, because of their size advantage while sitting in the pocket.
It could well be that taller guys see things that the smaller guys don’t. That and the fact that, as above, they can make every throw available. Smaller guys are limited to the types of throws they make.
Jeff Garcia couldn’t throw a flat ball over Jonathon Ogden’s head, for instance.
Funneling though, the smaller guys do hold the higher ground (pardon the pun) in terms of picks thrown—even accounting for Rex Grossman’s average boosting performances.
It could be the flip side to the above point. Smaller guys are limited in the type of throws they make, so possibly they don’t make as many risky shots down the middle.
Another factor being, with their extra mobility, they traditionally don’t stay in the pocket as long, so they make higher percentage, short, flat throws, on the run.
One conclusion could be that sitting in the pocket and throwing over tackles heads, generally gets you more touchdowns, but at the same time, more picks.
In any case, the taller group of players has both the highest average touchdown per season figure, as well as the second lowest pick per season figure, so the fascination with QB height is becoming more and more understandable.
Finally, sacks and fumbles
This is a stat where I expect bigger guys to suffer—and the figures don’t disappoint.
Small guys hold a big advantage over big quarterbacks, in terms of avoiding the blitz—quite obviously because of the extra speed they hold and their ability to use their feet, and avoid the rush.
However, it's not all plain sailing for the pip squeaks. Bearing in mind they get sacked far less than both medium and large groups, they fumble on average about the same as both.
This, for me, tells us that there is a significant weight issue, in terms of holding on to the ball. Big quarterbacks do get sacked more, but they are much better equipped to hold onto the ball when it happens.
In terms of avoiding the rush and holding on to the ball, the medium group of quarterbacks seems to hold the advantage, on the basis that they are a nice mix of both size and speed.
The speed of a Jeff Garcia. The bulk of a Tom Brady.
Not that all big guys are sitting ducks. I was amazed to see that Peyton Manning averaged only 19 sacks and three fumbles per season—better than almost every small quarterback on the list—compared to Brady’s 29 sacks and 10 fumbles per year.
It seems Peyton’s fleet-of-foot is grossly underrated. And Tom isn’t perfect in every aspect of the game. Although, I’m sure Peyton would take a few more hits per game for another ring!
Wrapping it up
I went into this thinking there would be little difference in terms of height and performance.
I went into this wanting to find little difference between height and performance.
I was happy living under the assumption that scouts were just biased towards big guys.
How wrong could I be.
Agreed, it’s a very small, basic study, but I think the numbers reflect why there aren’t more six foot quarterbacks in the league and why they generally slide in drafts.
Statistically, they are going to be less accurate.
Statistically, they are going to give up more fumbles per sack.
Statistically, they aren’t going to hit as many home runs.
Statistically, they are more likely to fail in the league.
Statistically, they are a bigger risk.
I think it also shows us why the average starting quarterback height in the league actually is 6’3.
6’3 is the prototypical height for a quarterback. Big enough to command the pocket. Big enough to make all the throws. Big enough to take a hit. But athletic enough to avoid the rush.
Unless of course, you are Peyton Manning—who seems to have everything.
I don't expect to see you post again on the subject...
Edited by jktooley on Jan 24, 2010 16:05:06
DL24
offline
offline
As much as I agree with the overall sentiment of height being important, there are quite a few flaws in that article(plus, its not like it's written by Peter King, or another NFL expert).
One that sticks out is that height doesn't directly effect mobility. A 6'5" guy isn't automatically less athletic than a 6'0".
It just looks like an attempt made by an armchair QB to do some of his own statistical analysis.
One that sticks out is that height doesn't directly effect mobility. A 6'5" guy isn't automatically less athletic than a 6'0".
It just looks like an attempt made by an armchair QB to do some of his own statistical analysis.
JuniorMcSpiffy
offline
offline
Originally posted by DL24
As much as I agree with the overall sentiment of height being important, there are quite a few flaws in that article(plus, its not like it's written by Peter King, or another NFL expert).
One that sticks out is that height doesn't directly effect mobility. A 6'5" guy isn't automatically less athletic than a 6'0".
It just looks like an attempt made by an armchair QB to do some of his own statistical analysis.
qfpeterkinglove
As much as I agree with the overall sentiment of height being important, there are quite a few flaws in that article(plus, its not like it's written by Peter King, or another NFL expert).
One that sticks out is that height doesn't directly effect mobility. A 6'5" guy isn't automatically less athletic than a 6'0".
It just looks like an attempt made by an armchair QB to do some of his own statistical analysis.
qfpeterkinglove
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
Sounds like good advice... Take it. You pretty much just made Ken1 look intelligent by comparison...
Everyone knows from your posting history that you are mentally challenged, but let me clue you in about statistical analysis. There's this little truism known as "correlation does not imply causation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Do you know that if you take "short" and replace it with "black," that you get a similar statistical disparity. Black quarterbacks on average have a lower completion percentage and worse TD / INT ratio. It isn't because being black makes you a worse quarterback, just as being short doesn't make you worse either. (if you want to argue that being black makes you inferior at passing the ball, then go right ahead and keep using that statistical argument) The reason for the statistical disparity is that you're drawing from a much smaller sample. Black quarterbacks make up a small percentage of the overall population, just as short quarterbacks do. Because of the smaller sample size, they are subject to more variation.
Originally posted by
I don't expect to see you post again on the subject...
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.
Sounds like good advice... Take it. You pretty much just made Ken1 look intelligent by comparison...
Everyone knows from your posting history that you are mentally challenged, but let me clue you in about statistical analysis. There's this little truism known as "correlation does not imply causation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation Do you know that if you take "short" and replace it with "black," that you get a similar statistical disparity. Black quarterbacks on average have a lower completion percentage and worse TD / INT ratio. It isn't because being black makes you a worse quarterback, just as being short doesn't make you worse either. (if you want to argue that being black makes you inferior at passing the ball, then go right ahead and keep using that statistical argument) The reason for the statistical disparity is that you're drawing from a much smaller sample. Black quarterbacks make up a small percentage of the overall population, just as short quarterbacks do. Because of the smaller sample size, they are subject to more variation.
Originally posted by
I don't expect to see you post again on the subject...
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.
jktooley
offline
offline
I can admit when I'm wrong (re: Pike having a cannon)... Too bad you can't do the same... Thanks for bringing up chapter 1 of my entry level Sociology course... I get the concept. I guess I should just take your fantasy football expertise as football 101 gold over a pretty sound analysis and the fact that it's been historically proven. While I'm doing just that, I'll try to find at least 1 way that you using Troy Smith as an example makes you somebody who's word should be trusted in these matters. I'll also ignore the fact that as a Colts fan I watch Peyton Manning week in and week out and watch him successfully make throws that a short quarterback can't possibly make based off of trajectory.
I'll also ponder your statement about there being less successful black quarterbacks based upon general population statistics while ignoring the fact that the last time the NFL posted its ethnic player profile in 2007 the league was composed of 66% black players... Given that on the whole the black athlete seems better suited for the NFL game when compared to its white counterparts, I find your argument there to be rather interesting... Why is it then that in a sport dominated by black athletes you don't see more successful black quarterbacks? Racism?
Thanks for the lesson.
I'll also ponder your statement about there being less successful black quarterbacks based upon general population statistics while ignoring the fact that the last time the NFL posted its ethnic player profile in 2007 the league was composed of 66% black players... Given that on the whole the black athlete seems better suited for the NFL game when compared to its white counterparts, I find your argument there to be rather interesting... Why is it then that in a sport dominated by black athletes you don't see more successful black quarterbacks? Racism?
Thanks for the lesson.
Edited by jktooley on Jan 24, 2010 22:56:42
Mr. Me2
offline
offline
Originally posted by Wylker
oh this thread
So I guess I did the right thing by stopping at Gart's post.
oh this thread
So I guess I did the right thing by stopping at Gart's post.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
I guess I should just take your fantasy football expertise as football 101 gold over a pretty sound analysis and the fact that it's been historically proven.
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
I'll also ignore the fact that as a Colts fan I watch Peyton Manning week in and week out and watch him successfully make throws that a short quarterback can't possibly make based off of trajectory.
Peyton Manning is not good because he's tall. 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.
I guess I should just take your fantasy football expertise as football 101 gold over a pretty sound analysis and the fact that it's been historically proven.
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
I'll also ignore the fact that as a Colts fan I watch Peyton Manning week in and week out and watch him successfully make throws that a short quarterback can't possibly make based off of trajectory.
Peyton Manning is not good because he's tall. 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.jktooley
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Peyton Manning is not good because he's tall. 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.
You continue to amaze me...
Yes, Rex Grossman's numbers skew the sample size of short QB's... As does Drew Brees's, but in the opposite direction, while having more impact due to weight in attempts...
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.
Peyton Manning is not good because he's tall. 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.You continue to amaze me...
Yes, Rex Grossman's numbers skew the sample size of short QB's... As does Drew Brees's, but in the opposite direction, while having more impact due to weight in attempts...
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.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by jktooley
You continue to amaze me... Yes, Rex Grossman's numbers skew the sample size of short QB's... As does Drew Brees's, but in the opposite direction, while having more impact due to weight in attempts...
Rex Grossman is farther below the league average than Drew Brees is above it. That's one of the many points that you continuously fail to grasp.
Originally posted by
And please show me where I said the only reason Manning was great was due to his height
"as a Colts fan I watch Peyton Manning week in and week out and watch him successfully make throws that a short quarterback can't possibly make based off of trajectory" 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
Nobody is saying height is the most important asset to a QB
"His height is a huge plus" "Huge" is where you got in trouble with that statement.
Originally posted by
I would place it in the top 10 of factors determining a QB's abilities to succeed.
I know. We've already established that you're completely clueless about what attributes influence quarterback success.
Originally posted by
Your saying it pretty much makes no difference at all, and it does.
"You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on."
You continue to amaze me... Yes, Rex Grossman's numbers skew the sample size of short QB's... As does Drew Brees's, but in the opposite direction, while having more impact due to weight in attempts...
Rex Grossman is farther below the league average than Drew Brees is above it. That's one of the many points that you continuously fail to grasp.
Originally posted by
And please show me where I said the only reason Manning was great was due to his height
"as a Colts fan I watch Peyton Manning week in and week out and watch him successfully make throws that a short quarterback can't possibly make based off of trajectory" 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
Nobody is saying height is the most important asset to a QB
"His height is a huge plus" "Huge" is where you got in trouble with that statement.
Originally posted by
I would place it in the top 10 of factors determining a QB's abilities to succeed.
I know. We've already established that you're completely clueless about what attributes influence quarterback success.
Originally posted by
Your saying it pretty much makes no difference at all, and it does.
"You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on."
jktooley
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
"You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on."
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...
When you quote me as saying I see Manning make throws a short quarterback couldn't make, the fact remains that there is truth in my point. Manning consistently makes short throws at a downward angle (5-6 yard range) towards the knees of his receivers that are nearly impossible to intercept and couldn't be made by a short quarterback... That's a PLUS... That means that his height is a BENEFIT... It doesn't mean that I am suggesting that Manning's height is his greatest attribute. That's your attempt to put words in my mouth, but again, when viewed objectively, that's not what I said.
As far as your attempt to suggest that Rex Grossman offsets Drew Brees in the statistical analysis that I presented earlier, once again you look like a blooming fucking idiot. Basic reading comprehension would allow you to understand that this study was based off of statistics from 2006, 2007, and 2008. A quick bit of research would allow you to see that Grossman attempted 767 passes in that time frame. Drew Brees attempted 1841. That means that as far as weighted value in the analysis is concerned, Drew Brees is having over 2x's the impact in this study as Rex Grossman... Good try. To put that into basic fantasy terms for you, that would be the equivalent of you suggesting that a 90% free throw shooter who only attempts 3 free throws a game would completely offset the impact of carrying Dwight Howard on your roto team where FT% is concerned... It doesn't work that way
.
"You'd rather a guy be 6'3" than 6'0", so I'm not saying that it's completely meaningless, but it ranks somewhere about 86th on the things you should be looking for in a quarterback. Basing your endorsement of a quarterback on the fact that he's tall is hilariously idiotic. I'm 6'3", so does that mean I should be trying out for NFL teams? Come on."
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...
When you quote me as saying I see Manning make throws a short quarterback couldn't make, the fact remains that there is truth in my point. Manning consistently makes short throws at a downward angle (5-6 yard range) towards the knees of his receivers that are nearly impossible to intercept and couldn't be made by a short quarterback... That's a PLUS... That means that his height is a BENEFIT... It doesn't mean that I am suggesting that Manning's height is his greatest attribute. That's your attempt to put words in my mouth, but again, when viewed objectively, that's not what I said.
As far as your attempt to suggest that Rex Grossman offsets Drew Brees in the statistical analysis that I presented earlier, once again you look like a blooming fucking idiot. Basic reading comprehension would allow you to understand that this study was based off of statistics from 2006, 2007, and 2008. A quick bit of research would allow you to see that Grossman attempted 767 passes in that time frame. Drew Brees attempted 1841. That means that as far as weighted value in the analysis is concerned, Drew Brees is having over 2x's the impact in this study as Rex Grossman... Good try. To put that into basic fantasy terms for you, that would be the equivalent of you suggesting that a 90% free throw shooter who only attempts 3 free throws a game would completely offset the impact of carrying Dwight Howard on your roto team where FT% is concerned... It doesn't work that way
.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
