[BostonCard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=9160.msg78629#msg78629 date=1387313571]
[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9160.msg78625#msg78625 date=1387312938]

...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.
[/quote]


Hmm.  Let's look at the last five Super Bowl winners:

Flacco- 32 attempts, 0.7 yard average
E. Manning- 35, 0.4
Rodgers- 64, 4.0
Brees- 22, 1.5
Rothliesburger- 34, 3.0

Perhaps a trend is emerging.  Thoughts?

[/quote]

Remember that Rich Gannon won a SuperBowl at Tampa Bay while Dan Marino never won one at Miami.  Which is to say that I don't think winning a SuperBowl is necessarily a metric of a good quarterback (and yes, I realize that Marino is the epitome of "non-mobile".

[BostonCard]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=9160.msg78629#msg78629 date=1387313571]
[quote author=Spartandawg link=topic=9160.msg78625#msg78625 date=1387312938]

...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.
[/quote]


Hmm.  Let's look at the last five Super Bowl winners:

Flacco- 32 attempts, 0.7 yard average
E. Manning- 35, 0.4
Rodgers- 64, 4.0
Brees- 22, 1.5
Rothliesburger- 34, 3.0

Perhaps a trend is emerging.  Thoughts?

[/quote]

Remember that Rich Gannon won a SuperBowl at Tampa Bay while Dan Marino never won one at Miami.  Which is to say that I don't think winning a SuperBowl is necessarily a metric of a good quarterback (and yes, I realize that Marino is the epitome of "non-mobile".