[stupac2]

...At this point I'm honestly about 50-50 that you're trolling or really think that's a legitimate, non-fallacious response. Just in case it's the latter, I'll go with it.

"The best QBs aren't mobile" is not logically incompatible with "a mobile QB is an asset". In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Would Tom Brady be better if he didn't run like a drunk toddler? I think the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. If you think it's not, you'd better have a good way to explain it.

Of course, you could be arguing that (for some reason) being mobile makes one less likely to be a good QB, which seems pretty obviously false (ever heard of John Elway?), especially if you look at the league right now. Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, and Russel Wilson are both playing very well, both as pocket passers and when forced to run. We could end up with a Super Bowl where both QBs are good runners pretty easily, in fact.

[stupac2]

...At this point I'm honestly about 50-50 that you're trolling or really think that's a legitimate, non-fallacious response. Just in case it's the latter, I'll go with it.

"The best QBs aren't mobile" is not logically incompatible with "a mobile QB is an asset". In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Would Tom Brady be better if he didn't run like a drunk toddler? I think the answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. If you think it's not, you'd better have a good way to explain it.

Of course, you could be arguing that (for some reason) being mobile makes one less likely to be a good QB, which seems pretty obviously false (ever heard of John Elway?), especially if you look at the league right now. Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, and Russel Wilson are both playing very well, both as pocket passers and when forced to run. We could end up with a Super Bowl where both QBs are good runners pretty easily, in fact.