You're saying Mac Jones displays quick twitch but I don't know what it means?
Yes original thought. Like telling you who'll be drafted high almost a year before it happens. Like being on point about the value on the majority of prospects who come out.
Original thought like when I said Mac could tighten up his mechanics. Possibly unlock some velocity in his release before anyone else and well before he went to House.
Or explaining to board that Bill hides his LB in coverage when everyone is wrong and going on about complaining how bad they are in man. Like people were complaining about things that weren't happening and you see other posters repeating it. Yes it's good to know what you're talking about for a specific discussion.
Or talk about how important Brady’s back foot is to his downfield accuracy. Most QBs have to lift it off the ground to reach a certain velocity but sacrifice accuracy.
Yes I've been wrong before but there's plenty of original thought and opinions. I'd much rather say something of substance than "Mac's parents played tennis he must have quick twitch" or "Mac has about as much quick twitch as Joe Montana" Just empty things that add and mean nothing.
This has been explained to you and others repeatedly. I'm beginning to think you're either dense, very stubborn, don't want to learn or not the smartest when it comes to this subject. Which is fine. There's plenty of things I'm not familiar with. I wouldn't walk into a garage and tell a mechanic how to operate or work for example.
The QB position has changed. That's not my opinion or anyone else's. It's changed. You absolutely have to be able to pass to win but all you need are eyes to see how it's changed.
Yes pocket passers have been on the decline in terms of being drafted early or starting. That's not an opinion its fact. Again all you have to do is look around the league and open your eyes. There are no true traditional pocket passers anymore. It's really not hard to decipher. Let's see which ones are traditional pocket passers.
Josh Allen - no
Tua - RPO Boy/Slant Man? No
Rodgers - he's allergic to the MOF and lived outside the pocket for so long. He wins from pocket but far from traditional if we're being objective.
Lamar - no
Mac - sure but even ran an rpo/screen offense in college that got him drafted 15th overall.
Anthony Richardson - no
Hurts - no
Trevor Lawrence - no
Ryan Tannehill - take away PA, strong running game and scheme yac touches. Works outside the pocket a lot. Can he drop back and just beat you scanning the field? I think most would agree he can't. Hardly a drop back, traditional pocket passer. And he's ran for over 2k yards.
Mahomes - no
Burrow - very close. His mobility is huge. He wins a ton outside the pocket. Top 5-6 in the league I believe with Geno, Mahomes, Hurts and Tua. Again he wins from inside the pocket but does so much more that Hurts the defense.
Fields - no
Dak - Idk again you have to ask yourself how confident you are in his decision making at times. I won't argue him but exactly the best under the conditions you're stating or just as a traditional pocket passer but I'll give you him if you want.
Watson - no
Herbert - yes and no. He's a terminator built different but mostly yes.
Cousins - yes
Stafford - yes
(Carr -
Goff -
Geno Smith -
Jimmy G -
(Baker -
all of these guys are extremely similar to Tannehill. The need a strong running game complemented by PA, designed runs/touches/motion. The need scheme in every way to succeed. Goff and Tannehill are so similar. I mean look at Jimmy when he's forced to drop back and just win when the games on the line. None are what I would call traditional or pocket passers at all. They all need a system and aren't the system.
Daniel Jones - no. Best thing about him is his legs.
Pickett - no
Russell Wilson - no
Jordan Love - no
Ridder - no
Murray - no
Idk that's like 25 guys and maybe 3-4 are what most would describe as traditional or a pocket passer?
This isn't hard to grasp if you're objective and just look at who's playing. Who's being drafted high and starting. Playing in.and winning SB's.
All I had to do is list a few QB's.
Again the problem with this is you're assuming things again. Which tells me you like to project and already have you're mind made up. You should be more open minded in your 70's? I believe you said?
I hope I make it that long so congrats but again don't start off with "either you are saying the GOAT is not enough for todays game." Some other dumb nonsense I don't care to understand. And then say "Something's wrong with that thinking either way."
How am I supposed to know what would happen if Brady entered the game today? That doesn't interest me at all and means nothing. He would be great, that's my answer.
Jeez, I guess I've earned the spot of being your forum enemy #1. Why is that? It's not liked this isn't a target rich environment.
So you're telling me not to question your authority when you make a living here second guessing the professionals in the sport?
I've made a well compensated career out managing folks in numerous disciplines that I sometimes only partially understood. Somebody has to do it. You pick up some epistemological tricks along the way -- like telling when an expert is BS-ing.
"Mac Jones has zero fast twitch muscles" is clear hyperbole. Everyone has fast twitch muscles. The average is 50%. Long distance runners might be as low as 15%, sprinters as high as 85%. It's largely genetic, so pointing out that Mac comes from an accomplished tennis family is quite relevant -- you need fast twitch muscles to play tennis. Just calling you out on your hyperbole, and you haven't shown anybody but you is making that anatomically impossible claim.
I actually don't doubt most of your analysis of the weaknesses of Mac's games; I just don't attribute it to missing muscle fibers. If I had to guess, I'd worry about his composure. He seems prone to making bad decisions under pressure and doesn't even use his limited athleticism when he could.
Again, I don't dispute that the NFL trend is toward dual-threat QB's, and there are lots of good things about that. But it's hyperbole to say pocket ("pro-style") QB's are dead. And if emergent Tom Brady's are actually being excluded from the sport because of that trend, that's not good for football. But I suspect that teams that go counter to that trend will predictably do well picking up pocket QB's cheap == Brock Purdy vs Trey Lance etc.
I absolutely agree that an NFL team can win committing to dual threat QB's, and win it all on the QB's first contract. It's a real trend.
Whether it's a durable trend is another matter because of the differential impact of injuries on rushing vs passing. RB's have the shortest NFL lifetimes, QB's the longest (kickers aside). Rushing skills erode much faster than passing skills. I think if a team commits to a dual threat offense, they need to stockpile dual threat QB's and maintain a pipeline like colleges naturally are forced to do.
BTW your ad hom guesses about me are just terrible. Mindreading is arrogant and dangerous because it's beyond difficult and it makes you look like a fool to your victim when you are wrong.
Even if you are surely not a fool.
