Tell me why...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

RUUUUDY

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 7:24:24 AM2/28/06
to
Running around a set of cones two tenths of a second faster than the
next guy can erase four years of on the field performance.

Vince Young had the best two games of his career at the rose bowl. His
performace against USC was epic. PPL love Brady because he can rise to
the challenge of the playoffs/superbowl... I see this same thing in
Vince Young. Vince carried the Horns and would refuse to quit. This
is the best player in the 2006 NFL draft.

Selecting a player for only his athletic upside or IQ is alot like
choosing your mate based on only her cup size.


Where was Reggie Bush during the most critical plays of the Rose
Bowl... sidelines.
Cutler... at home
Where was Vince Young.... endzone.

Personally I think performance on the field and in the bed is most
important.

Looneyt0on

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 9:53:49 AM2/28/06
to
RUUUUDY wrote:

> Running around a set of cones two tenths of a second faster than the
next guy can erase four years of on the field performance.

because in college it's deceiving to determine the true abilities of a
player because of the large disparity in talent between teams and
conferences, not to mention that college careers do not necessarily
translate to success in the pro game. Steve Walsh and Andre Ware were
some of the most impressive QB's coming out of college and both bombed
in the pros. Same for many other prospects who had great college
careers and then were washouts in the NFL. The talent on teams in the
major conferences is vastly different than the talent of minor
conferences. Players that dominated against teams like Rice and
Mississippi Valley State wouldn't against USC or Texas in most cases,
so by measuring their times, strength, etc., you can get a better idea
of their real talent. That said, there are still some intangibles that
will make a player great or a bust despite a superior or less than
average performance in an NFL combine.

> Vince Young had the best two games of his career at the rose bowl. His
> performace against USC was epic.

USC's defense wasn't that great. They were 48th out of 117 NCAA
division 1 teams in total defense.

> PPL love Brady because he can rise to the challenge of the playoffs/superbowl...
> I see this same thing in Vince Young. Vince carried the Horns and would refuse to
> quit. This is the best player in the 2006 NFL draft.

no, he's possibly the best athlete, but definitely not the best player.


> Selecting a player for only his athletic upside or IQ is alot like
> choosing your mate based on only her cup size.

yet you hypocritically say Young is the best player in the 2006 NFL
draft. The only thing he has going for him is his athletic upside. He
has an average arm at best and has shown from his wunderlich test that
he's not the brightest guy. Scoring a 16 on that test is below average
for a QB. Young is like the cute blonde with a big rack, fun to
watch visually, but that's all you get. He'll probably end up like
Michael Vick, which isn't a compliment because Vick is possibly the
worst QB in the NFL. Vick is a great athlete, but has no clue how to
be a QB. I see Young doing the same.

RUUUUDY

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 11:32:51 AM2/28/06
to
Vince Young is a leader.

Do they test that at the combine?

When Texas needed a big play. The entire stadium knew Vince would pull
through.

I don't think picking Vince Young is based only on athletic upside... I
base the pick on performance with particular emphasis on how well he
played when the game was on the line against top competition.

not a 40 time...
not a cone drill...
not his bench press...

I take Vince Young because he has "it". He is a player that rises to
challenges. He has proven that when he is on..he is unstoppable.

I take Vince Young the leader.

BTW Dan Marino scored a 13 on the Wonderlic...

he turned out A'OK.

RUUUUDY

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 11:32:58 AM2/28/06
to

Looneyt0on

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 4:06:09 PM2/28/06
to
RUUUUDY wrote:

> Vince Young is a leader.

and your point? There's plenty of college football "leaders" that end
up assistant managers at McDonalds after their college days are over.

> Do they test that at the combine?

no, being a leader has nothing to do with your performance. Do you
really think that being a leader somehow makes you a better player?

> When Texas needed a big play. The entire stadium knew Vince would pull
> through.

because he was the best athlete on the field at the time and USC's
defense was merely average. When Texas needed a big play, how did it
happen from Young? It happened by run EVERY TIME. Young had 3 rushing
TD's and NONE passing. He used his speed, not his arm. IE, his
ATHLETIC ability.

> I don't think picking Vince Young is based only on athletic upside...

it's certainly not his ability to make deep throws, because he hasnt
shown he's got anything more than an average NFL arm at best.

> I base the pick on performance with particular emphasis on how well he
> played when the game was on the line against top competition.

the top competition wasn't the top rated defense. They were an AVERAGE
defense. Basically you base the pick on performance only with emphasis
on how well he played in the Rose Bowl. His big plays weren't passes,
they were runs.

> not a 40 time...
> not a cone drill...
> not his bench press...

and certainly not his wunderlich score.

> I take Vince Young because he has "it".

"it" being nothing you can define other than a few runs he had in the
Rose Bowl. Once he can't outrun defenses like he probably won't be
regularly able to do in the NFL, his "it" will turn to sh"it".

> He is a player that rises to challenges. He has proven that when he is on..he is unstoppable.

he's proven he can run the ball well. Nothing as a passer yet. Here's
a question for you, do you think Michael Vick is a good QB and why? I
see Young as a lesser Mike Vick, not as fast and with an average NFL
arm. Vick's won some games and got the team to the playoffs and NFC
title game, but he's no QB.

> I take Vince Young the leader.

good for you, you want fries with that?

> BTW Dan Marino scored a 13 on the Wonderlic...

no, he scored a 16.

> he turned out A'OK.

because he had a lightning quick release and an absolute gun for an
arm. Young has NONE of those.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 4:36:05 PM2/28/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> "it" being nothing you can define other than a few runs he had in the
> Rose Bowl.

OK, I've heard enough of Vince Young's career having been nothing more than two Rose Bowl games.

Over three years as a starter at Texas they lost all of 2 games, both of them to Yokelahoma. Both in
years where OU either won the championship or played for it.

He overcame a 28 point 2nd quarter deficit to Ok. St. in 2004. He repeated after they fell behind to
them big in Stillwater last year.

Young set the UT single-game completion percentage record against Oklahoma State in 2004 by
completing 18 of 21 passes (85.7%). He broke his own record by completing 25 of 29 passes (86.2%)
against Colorado in 2005.

Vince’s career passing completion percentage is the best in UT history, 61.8%.

If you want to say all he throws are dinks, I suggest you take a look at the one he pinpointed to
Limas Sweed to beat Ohio St. in Columbus last season. That won probably the biggest game of Mack
Brown's career in Texas up until then.

Vince is the first and only player in NCAA I-A history to pass for 3,000 yards and rush for 1,000
yards in the same season. He is also the only player to reach the 2,500/1,000 mark.

In 2005 he passed for over 3000 yards and 26 TD's.

So there's your "it."

It's a little bit more than the bullsh"it" about him being all about only two Rose Bowls.

The Longhorns behind Young dominated in most games the way the Hurricanes of the 80's and 90's did.
I saw every one of his home games live. I stayed until the end of all but one because that way the
traffic was back to normal after everybody left in the 3rd quarter because most games were over by
then.

Vince Young in college was not the two game wonder you keep trying to portray.

And that's "IT!"

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 8:04:50 PM2/28/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> Looneyt0on wrote:

> > "it" being nothing you can define other than a few runs he had in the
> > Rose Bowl.

> OK, I've heard enough of Vince Young's career having been nothing more than two Rose Bowl games.

I wasn't the one that defined his career as such, the original poster
did.

> Over three years as a starter at Texas they lost all of 2 games, both of them to Yokelahoma. Both in
> years where OU either won the championship or played for it.

He must not have been starter for a few of the losses then because
Texas was 34-4 the last 3 years. Texas was a good team before Vince
Young became starter and they'll continue to be good. The 3 years
before Young was there they were 31-7 so its not like they sucked.
They played only 3 ranked teams last year.

> He overcame a 28 point 2nd quarter deficit to Ok. St. in 2004. He repeated after they fell behind to
> them big in Stillwater last year.

overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the
scoreboard much before they fell behind by 28 points.

> Young set the UT single-game completion percentage record against Oklahoma State in 2004 by
> completing 18 of 21 passes (85.7%). He broke his own record by completing 25 of 29 passes (86.2%)
> against Colorado in 2005.

I didnt say he wasnt an accurate passer, I said he can't throw the deep
throw and has an average arm at best. Danny Wuerffel was an excellent
passer but wasn't worth a crap in the NFL because he didn't have the
arm.

> Vince's career passing completion percentage is the best in UT history, 61.8%.

it's not like they've had many great passers there.

> If you want to say all he throws are dinks, I suggest you take a look at the one he pinpointed to
> Limas Sweed to beat Ohio St. in Columbus last season. That won probably the biggest game of Mack
> Brown's career in Texas up until then.

you pulled 1 long pass he threw as all the proof I'd ever need that he
can throw the deep ball?

> Vince is the first and only player in NCAA I-A history to pass for 3,000 yards and rush for 1,000
> yards in the same season. He is also the only player to reach the 2,500/1,000 mark.

he needed the Rose Bowl to get to 3000 yards in a season. Over 13
games, that averaged out to almost 234 yards passing a game. None of
it has to do with what I said, which is he cant throw the deep ball and
only has an average NFL arm at best.

> In 2005 he passed for over 3000 yards and 26 TD's.

and in his other 2 years he had 18 TD's and 18 INT's and 3004 yards
combined.

> So there's your "it."

not sold on him in the least as an NFL player. He had a great year
last year but I don't see him transitioning to the pros very well at
all. Still as close to sh"it" as "it". I predict he'll be a bust in
the NFL.

> It's a little bit more than the bullsh"it" about him being all about only two Rose Bowls.

I only argue with what the other poster wants to put in front of me to
argue.

> The Longhorns behind Young dominated in most games the way the Hurricanes of the 80's and 90's did.

The Longhorns only played 3 ranked teams, winning by 3, 33 and 3. The
other games weren't close because the teams pretty much sucked as a
whole. I hate the Hurricanes, but Texas can't hold a candle to those
teams.

> I saw every one of his home games live. I stayed until the end of all but one because that way the
> traffic was back to normal after everybody left in the 3rd quarter because most games were over by
> then.

good for you. You'll be rooting for him to succeed then. I hope he
proves me wrong, but I see him no better than Vick is now, and that's
no compliment.

> Vince Young in college was not the two game wonder you keep trying to portray.

just going by what the other poster wanted to argue.

> And that's "IT!"

it's definitely "it".

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Feb 28, 2006, 10:03:24 PM2/28/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> Bobby Galvez wrote:
> > He overcame a 28 point 2nd quarter deficit to Ok. St. in 2004. He repeated after they fell behind to
> > them big in Stillwater last year.
>
> overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the
> scoreboard much before they fell behind by 28 points.

Jeeze .... yeah, have it your way.

We'll go ahead and ignore the 56 points he posted in the next 35 minutes.

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 9:12:05 AM3/1/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> Looneyt0on wrote:

> > Bobby Galvez wrote:
> > > He overcame a 28 point 2nd quarter deficit to Ok. St. in 2004. He repeated after they fell behind to
> > > them big in Stillwater last year.

> > overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the
> > scoreboard much before they fell behind by 28 points.

> Jeeze .... yeah, have it your way.

No, no need to have it my way. Look at the stats of the game and the
other team involved before you are in such awe of how well Young
played. In 2004, Oklahoma St. had the 75th ranked defense out of 117
Division 1-A college football teams. There's no doubt Young had a good
game, going 18-22 (81%) for 278 passing yards, but he did it against an
awful defense and there's no way they should have been down 28 points
in any scenario.

> We'll go ahead and ignore the 56 points he posted in the next 35 minutes.

he posted all the points? I guess Cedric Benson's 5 touchdowns somehow
should get credited to Young. Afterall, he did hand it off to him.

My point is that college success doesn't necessarily translate to the
pro game. I don't see Young's game suited to work out in the NFL. I'd
be willing to bet that he doesnt throw 20 TD's his first season if he
plays in more than 12 games.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 10:37:43 AM3/1/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> Bobby Galvez wrote:
>
> > Looneyt0on wrote:
>
> > > Bobby Galvez wrote:
> > > > He overcame a 28 point 2nd quarter deficit to Ok. St. in 2004. He repeated after they fell behind to
> > > > them big in Stillwater last year.
>
> > > overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the
> > > scoreboard much before they fell behind by 28 points.
>
> > Jeeze .... yeah, have it your way.
>
> No, no need to have it my way. Look at the stats of the game and the
> other team involved before you are in such awe of how well Young
> played. In 2004, Oklahoma St. had the 75th ranked defense out of 117
> Division 1-A college football teams. There's no doubt Young had a good
> game, going 18-22 (81%) for 278 passing yards, but he did it against an
> awful defense and there's no way they should have been down 28 points
> in any scenario.

OK. I guess the Texas offense was awful in allowing the Ok. St. offense to score early as much as they did.
Looking over the stats I see that Vince Young didn't make even one tackle.

It wasn't an impressive comeback. They should have won by 100, right?

"... there's no way they should have been down 28 points in any scenario." Nope, not in any scenario ...
except for in reality, even if it goes against everything you swear you think you know. Things is what they
is, not what you think they should be.

Fact is they were down, they were getting blown out, and they came back from a major upset bid. Twice in two
years to the same team. That's conference play. Ok. St. didn't get your memos about how their defense sucked.


> > We'll go ahead and ignore the 56 points he posted in the next 35 minutes.
>
> he posted all the points? I guess Cedric Benson's 5 touchdowns somehow
> should get credited to Young. Afterall, he did hand it off to him.

Let's go back to YOUR brilliant observation featuring the "he" word:

"overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the scoreboard much before they fell behind by
28 points."

I was keeping it in your terms. Sorry to confuse you. I'll try to be clearer and substitute better terms for
yours where needed.

> My point is that college success doesn't necessarily translate to the
> pro game. I don't see Young's game suited to work out in the NFL. I'd
> be willing to bet that he doesnt throw 20 TD's his first season if he
> plays in more than 12 games.

Wow. You love the razor-edge bets.

Only 9 QB's who played all 16 games threw for more than 20 last year. Where the hell do you get a 20 TD
benchmark in 12 games for a rookie? ... never mind, I don't think we need to know.

By the way, Roethlisberger who had exactly 12 games, threw for 17.

You have your standards and reality operates elsewhere.

As for Young's success in the NFL, I don't look for him to even start next year. And as for predicting the
success or failure of any given QB, there are no sure things.

What I sure as hell don't see is where you get your cock-suredness that Young will be a bust.

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 12:32:57 PM3/1/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> > Looneyt0on wrote:

> > No, no need to have it my way. Look at the stats of the game and the
> > other team involved before you are in such awe of how well Young
> > played. In 2004, Oklahoma St. had the 75th ranked defense out of 117
> > Division 1-A college football teams. There's no doubt Young had a good
> > game, going 18-22 (81%) for 278 passing yards, but he did it against an
> > awful defense and there's no way they should have been down 28 points
> > in any scenario.

> OK. I guess the Texas offense was awful in allowing the Ok. St. offense to score early as much as they did.
> Looking over the stats I see that Vince Young didn't make even one tackle.

No, the Texas OFFENSE was poor in the first half, scoring only 14
points. Had they been better they would have scored more and thus not
been down 28 points.

> It wasn't an impressive comeback. They should have won by 100, right?

I didn't say it wasn't an impressive comeback, only one that shouldn't
have been necessary.

> "... there's no way they should have been down 28 points in any scenario." Nope, not in any scenario ...
> except for in reality, even if it goes against everything you swear you think you know. Things is what they
> is, not what you think they should be.

Reality is that they played so poorly on offense and just as bad on
offense that they got down 28 points, which should have never happened.

> Fact is they were down, they were getting blown out,

BECAUSE they couldn't SCORE. That's the fault of the OFFENSE.

> and they came back from a major upset bid. Twice in two
> years to the same team. That's conference play. Ok. St. didn't get your memos about how their defense sucked.

yes they did, they gave up 56 and 44 points.

> > > We'll go ahead and ignore the 56 points he posted in the next 35 minutes.

> > he posted all the points? I guess Cedric Benson's 5 touchdowns somehow
> > should get credited to Young. Afterall, he did hand it off to him.

> Let's go back to YOUR brilliant observation featuring the "he" word:

> "overcoming a 28 point deficit means he didnt get the team on the scoreboard much before they fell behind by
> 28 points."

which is a completely true observation. HE didnt get the team on the
scoreboard much to get down 28 points, and HE wasnt the one that got in
the end zone in the second half when they did score.

> I was keeping it in your terms. Sorry to confuse you. I'll try to be clearer and substitute better terms for
> yours where needed.

You didn't confuse me, you're just wrong about what HE did. I already
said he had a great game passing wise, but HE wasn't the one that
posted all the 42 points in the second half. Had he thrown for 4 TD's
in the game then yeah he would have been the one posting the points,
but he had 1 passing TD and 1 rushing TD. That's like saying Trent
Green was responsible for posting the points in the game that KC scored
7 times, all on rushing TD's.

> > My point is that college success doesn't necessarily translate to the
> > pro game. I don't see Young's game suited to work out in the NFL. I'd
> > be willing to bet that he doesnt throw 20 TD's his first season if he
> > plays in more than 12 games.

> Wow. You love the razor-edge bets.

Your'e the one thinking he's good. How about I'll bet that he doesn't
throw more than 1.25 TD's per game he appears in. That would only be
15 TD's in 12 games.

> Only 9 QB's who played all 16 games threw for more than 20 last year.

11 threw 20 or more and McNabb and Bulger certainly would have if
healthy. They played in 8 and 9 games and had 16 and 14 TD's. 20 TD's
isnt much of an accomplishment for a QB.

> Where the hell do you get a 20 TD benchmark in 12 games for a rookie? ... never mind, I don't think we need to know.

I just threw it out there. Any decent QB should be able to throw 20
TD's in a season. Over 16 games that's 1.25 a game and over 12 its
1.66. Of the 32 teams in the NFL, 18 threw for 20 TD's or more last
year. Might have been overzealous in thinking he could throw 20 TD's
in 16 games, but I dont see 20 TD's as an achievement by any QB that is
half decent.

> By the way, Roethlisberger who had exactly 12 games, threw for 17.

Roethlisberger is a QB who manages the offense, which is exactly what
Pittsburgh needs. He had the least amount of attempts of any QB in the
top 30 in passing TD's and Pittsburgh had the least passing attempts in
the entire NFL last year. He averaged 22.33 passing attempts a game
last year, they averaged more when he wasn't playing. If needed, he
could throw for more than 20 TD. Had he had 5.24 more attempts a game,
putting him at 27.57 a game (which still would have been 30th out of 32
teams in attempts per game) he would have had 20 TD's in 12 games.

> You have your standards and reality operates elsewhere.

and you have illusions and low standards as to what constitutes a
decent NFL QB.

> As for Young's success in the NFL, I don't look for him to even start next year.

depends on the team that drafts him. Do you think Leinart will start?
I think he will start about 12 of the 16 games.

>And as for predicting the success or failure of any given QB, there are no sure things.

never said there was.

> What I sure as hell don't see is where you get your cock-suredness that Young will be a bust.

I just call it like I see it. He played in a simplified offense and
doesnt have good arm strength. From the combine: 40-yard dash: 4.50.
He won't be able to outrun everyone and break tackles like he did in
college and that won't help him any. More analysis that I found
interesting about what is being said: "[his] current sidearm delivery
might lead to batted-down passes in the NFL. Sometimes throws off back
foot and allows passes to float." "Struggles to read coverage. Must
become more patient, stand in the pocket and give receivers more time
to get open. Sometimes tries to do too much." "Needs to improve his
decision-making and prove he can run an NFL-style offense." "The talk
is not whether Young will fall down the draft board but how far."
"We're told the NFL official responsible for grading the test might
have made a mistake on Young's score and others in his group who took
the same test...Still, although Young's score appears to be higher than
six, we're told he still performed very poorly on the test." "We can
debate the cause of Young's Combine performance, but there is no debate
that his draft stock was severely damaged." "Once considered a strong
possibility for a top-three overall pick, now he might not even be one
of the first three quarterbacks drafted."

There's been a lot good said about him as well, as the article game him
grades of 8.6 to 8.9. If he can bring the intanglibles to the NFL like
he did in college, then he might prove me wrong and I hope he does, but
I just don't see him succeeding in the NFL.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 1:38:39 PM3/1/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> I just call it like I see it. He played in a simplified offense and
> doesnt have good arm strength. From the combine: 40-yard dash: 4.50.

He didn't run at the combine.


> "We can
> debate the cause of Young's Combine performance, but there is no debate
> that his draft stock was severely damaged."

Should be a short debate. He didn't work out at the combine. Didn't you know that?

Got anything else for us?

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 2:40:15 PM3/1/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> Looneyt0on wrote:

> > I just call it like I see it. He played in a simplified offense and
> > doesnt have good arm strength. From the combine: 40-yard dash: 4.50.

> He didn't run at the combine.

my error: the 40 yard time was taken previously. The information was
from the combine, not the run.

> > "We can
> > debate the cause of Young's Combine performance, but there is no debate
> > that his draft stock was severely damaged."

> Should be a short debate. He didn't work out at the combine. Didn't you know that?

it was a reference to his incredible Wunderlich test score.



> Got anything else for us?

nope, he's free falling enough as it is.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 2:51:26 PM3/1/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> Bobby Galvez wrote:
>
> > Looneyt0on wrote:
>
> > > I just call it like I see it. He played in a simplified offense and
> > > doesnt have good arm strength. From the combine: 40-yard dash: 4.50.
>
> > He didn't run at the combine.
>
> my error: the 40 yard time was taken previously. The information was
> from the combine, not the run.

Lame save.

You didn't know he didn't run or work out, but you wrote on and on and on ....


> > > "We can
> > > debate the cause of Young's Combine performance, but there is no debate
> > > that his draft stock was severely damaged."
>
> > Should be a short debate. He didn't work out at the combine. Didn't you know that?
>
> it was a reference to his incredible Wunderlich test score.

A test that any number of GM's and coaches have come out to say they put limited stock
in. Memorable phrases, "It's a tie-breaker if anything." "It may be a red flag." "It's
one of a number of things we look at, but by no means among the most important."


> > Got anything else for us?
>
> nope, he's free falling enough as it is.

Yeah.

There's what you see, and then there's reality.

Only from you do we hear about his stock plummeting.

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 1, 2006, 5:37:13 PM3/1/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> > Looneyt0on wrote:

> > > He didn't run at the combine.

> > my error: the 40 yard time was taken previously. The information was
> > from the combine, not the run.

> Lame save.

I admit an error on my part and it's a lame save? The quotes were from
the combine and I erroneously wrote that it was from the combine
because the article was all about the combine and from it. I thought
it said combine 40 time and didnt question it until you mentioned it.

> You didn't know he didn't run or work out, but you wrote on and on and on ....

I know he didn't, but wasn't thinking about it when I pasted the
article. Doesn't matter what I say, you'll naively think I didn't
know. I wrote on and on quotes about him from the combine.


> > > Should be a short debate. He didn't work out at the combine. Didn't you know that?

> > it was a reference to his incredible Wunderlich test score.

> A test that any number of GM's and coaches have come out to say they put limited stock
> in. Memorable phrases, "It's a tie-breaker if anything." "It may be a red flag." "It's
> one of a number of things we look at, but by no means among the most important."

doesn't matter, his test score still shows him about as smart as a tree
stump. There's reports that he took it again and scored a 16, which is
still below average.

> > > Got anything else for us?

> > nope, he's free falling enough as it is.

> Yeah.

> There's what you see, and then there's reality.

try reading article sometime then.

> Only from you do we hear about his stock plummeting.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5363342
http://football.about.com/b/a/247308.htm
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=66818http://feeds.indianapolisnews.net/?rid=2d5a38ceb7e6e1ea&cat=43a9fd3724cda141&f=1

that was just the first page of a yahoo search. Google would turn up a
lot more.

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 9:23:04 AM3/2/06
to
Here's some more of what's being said about Vince Young's stock and
don't think he's the consensus #3 pick right now. Many still have him
as the #3 pick and he may prove me wrong, but this is what's being said
right now:

from sportsline.com mock draft:

3. Tennessee Titans - Jay Cutler, QB, Vanderbilt. Word around the
combine was that Norm Chow wasn't sold on Vince Young's ability to run
his offense. Meanwhile, Cutler did nothing but convince some personnel
people that he might be the best pocket quarterback in this draft.
7. Oakland Raiders - Vince Young, QB, Texas. His combine was a mess.
In hindsight, Young would have been better served if he had worked out.
But he's going to have a shot to climb right back to a top-three pick
at his pro day. If anyone is capable of blowing the minds of NFL people
in a workout, it's Young.

from football.about.com mock draft:

10. Arizona Cardinals - Vince Young*, QB Texas
With Kurt Warner under contract, the Cardinals can bring Young along
slowly. And they have a nice collection of weapons to complement him
already in place.

from huddlegeeks.com mock draft:

7.) Oakland *Vince Young - QB - Texas, The Raiders need a long-term
solution at the QB position, even if they choose to keep Kerry Collins
around for the 2006 season. Young has tons of raw talent and is a born
winner. Al Davis will be too tempted not to snag Young if he is
available at this point. There is some risk involved, but the reward
could be very high.

from insidetheeagles.com mock draft:

7 Oak Vince Young QB Texas Nice size for a QB. Strong with an elusive
running ability.

from ourlads.com mock draft: (this one is an outrageously scathing
evaluation of Vince Young and I don't agree that he'll fall out of the
top 20, because Miami would take him if available I would think, but
they did take Fletcher over Brees, so who really knows?):

Vince Young QB Texas - Al Davis is enamored with Young's speed and
athletic ability. The fact is, Vince Young is a development NFL
quarterback prospect that rates as a second or third round selection. A
rare athlete that makes plays with his legs. In the NFL you make plays
as a QB with your arm. Young hasn't demonstrated that he can read
complex defenses or compete a pass through a small window of
opportunity. Will a team invest an early pick and millions of dollars
in a developmental quarterback that may not be ready until he is
eligible for free agency? A top five athlete should not be confused
with a top five position player. If the Raiders don't take him, he
may free fall out of the first round once the total evaluations are
tabulated.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 11:28:28 AM3/2/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:


The simple truth is this: It must have been a very ordinary combine if the
story that everyone is drumming on is Young's Wunderlic.

The big story aside from that is that Butler improved his standing
significantly, placing him ahead of Young for teams looking for a
traditional pocket passer. It's probably where he was rated by teams
anyway, but the press hadn't "discovered" that yet. Young's Wunderlic gave
reporters an easy story and it got them all fed for a few days. They could
stay out late and get up late because this is the story of the combine.
Easy gig this year.

Let's see what happens after his workout in Austin. Frankly, I expect no
major changes in his status. Tennessee's Steve McNair likes Young. Norm
Chow may love the guy and be telling porky-pies about his doubts. Or he may
be telling the truth. If Chow is really stuck on his system, then he's
probably condemned to mediocrity. Great coaches look to put the best eleven
players on each side of the ball and find systems for the players to do
their best in. If Chow's that stuck on his system, he's going to end up
just stuck. Systems don't win championships.

At any rate, any talk about Young's precipitous fall as a result of a "poor
combine" is prattle. All he did was interview. Lots of teams talked with
him and I have yet to hear that any of them felt they spent time with a
dolt.

The long and the short of the Wunderlic is that a 14 can get you a Dan
Marino. A 42 can get you a Drew Henson. A 15 gets you a Randall Cunningham.
I'll take the "dummies."

If Young had scored a 40, do you think teams would shed all their doubts
about his throwing motion, or about his propensity to run? Would it make
him stronger under center? Would that have made him the star of the combine
where he didn't work out?

Sheesh. It's tiresome reading all this crap about one dumb test and trying
to make of it the result of a guy's combine. The combine is not about
mental gymnastics.

One thing that evaluators will sit and think about is that at Vandy Cutler
never faced the pressure that Young faced in two Rose Bowls and at
Columbus. Or facing disastrous upset bids two years running by Ok. St. Or
having to play in a conference championship game in order to reach the big
one. Vandy doesn't play in big games. That "what if" has been answered by
Young. You can hug your Wunderlic, I'll go by everything else.

BobbyG

StuGotts

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 12:34:58 PM3/2/06
to

"Bobby Galvez" <cnel...@austin.rr.com> wrote

>
>
> The simple truth is this: It must have been a very ordinary combine if the
> story that everyone is drumming on is Young's Wunderlic.
>
> The big story aside from that is that Butler improved his standing
> significantly, placing him ahead of Young for teams looking for a
> traditional pocket passer. It's probably where he was rated by teams
> anyway, but the press hadn't "discovered" that yet. Young's Wunderlic gave
> reporters an easy story and it got them all fed for a few days. They could
> stay out late and get up late because this is the story of the combine.
> Easy gig this year.
>
> Let's see what happens after his workout in Austin. Frankly, I
> expect no major changes in his status. Tennessee's Steve McNair
> likes Young. Norm Chow may love the guy and be telling porky-pies
> about his doubts. Or he may be telling the truth. If Chow is really
> stuck on his system, then he's probably condemned to mediocrity.
> Great coaches look to put the best eleven players on each side of the
> ball and find systems for the players to do their best in. If Chow's that
> stuck on his system, he's going to end up just stuck. Systems don't
> win championships.


That's not entirely accurate, IMO. Systems are an integral part of many
successful teams... be it a 3-4 D, spread offense, Kgun no huddle, single
back, double te, west coast, 3 wide, etc. And a coach looking to draft
players that fit into what he deems to have the best chance of success isn't
being pigheaded or stubborn... it's having some level of confidence in what
you have seen or used... that worked.

Now if you're talking about using the players that you already have in ways
that best amplify their strengths... that's an entirely different matter.
But this particular instance deals with obtaining the type of talent... with
the proper strengths... in the areas a coach has the most confidence in.

This is a different situation than drafting at the bottom of the 1st round.
The coaches that have a shot at Vince will have the entire pool of
candidates to pick from.

> At any rate, any talk about Young's precipitous fall as a result of a
"poor
> combine" is prattle. All he did was interview. Lots of teams talked with
> him and I have yet to hear that any of them felt they spent time with a
> dolt.

I sorta doubt any would have... no matter what the interview was like.
Unless they're looking to precipitate a fall in his perceived worth so that
he'll be available when they draft. And if that's the case... VINCE YOUNG
IS AN IDIOT!!! HIS ARM STRENGTH IS BOGUS!!! NOBODY SHOULD DRAFT HIM ANY
HIGHER THAN 3RD ROUND!!! (Note to Saban: just kidding Nick... grab the
somnabitch with your 1st round pick)


> The long and the short of the Wunderlic is that a 14 can get you a Dan
> Marino. A 42 can get you a Drew Henson. A 15 gets you a Randall
> Cunningham. I'll take the "dummies."
>
> If Young had scored a 40, do you think teams would shed all their doubts
> about his throwing motion, or about his propensity to run? Would it make
> him stronger under center? Would that have made him the star of the
combine
> where he didn't work out?
>
> Sheesh. It's tiresome reading all this crap about one dumb test and trying
> to make of it the result of a guy's combine. The combine is not about
> mental gymnastics.

No... it's the result of TWO dumb tests. ;-)


> One thing that evaluators will sit and think about is that at Vandy Cutler
> never faced the pressure that Young faced in two Rose Bowls and at
> Columbus. Or facing disastrous upset bids two years running by Ok. St. Or
> having to play in a conference championship game in order to reach the big
> one. Vandy doesn't play in big games. That "what if" has been answered by
> Young. You can hug your Wunderlic, I'll go by everything else.
>
> BobbyG

Actually... while they may not have had NC implications... Cutler did come
up big, in what for Vandy, were high pressure situations. He had some
excellent outings... against Florida in The Swamp (L 49-42, 66.7%
completetion rate, 4 TDs)...beating Tenn on their home field (W28-24, 59.1%
comp, 5 TDs)... and beating Arkansas by the same score... @ Arkansas.

That said... I would gladly take either Young or Cutler as the Dolphins top
pick... and be happy as hell with him!

Stu


Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 12:48:22 PM3/2/06
to

StuGotts wrote:

>
> > Sheesh. It's tiresome reading all this crap about one dumb test and trying
> > to make of it the result of a guy's combine. The combine is not about
> > mental gymnastics.
>
> No... it's the result of TWO dumb tests. ;-)

Crikey ...

Feeding you a line is like tossing Barry Bonds a meatball ...

Anyway, nobody who talked to him called him a cafone! <G>

BobbyG

StuGotts

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 1:26:38 PM3/2/06
to

"Bobby Galvez" <cnel...@austin.rr.com> wrote ...

ROFLOL

Jeesh... can you imagine being from Italy... living around Argies... and not
knowing about their Eyetie connection?

* * *

I think part of the problem is that, as you said, Vince is a high profile
guy... and the only thing those lazyass sportwriters have in front of them
are his supposed test scores. As with many top prospects... he chose not to
participate in most combine events... so they're stuck for facts.

Also, keep in mind that the majority of those clowns also predicted a USC
victory and had long ago annointed Lienhart as the greatest QB to come out
of college since Peyton Manning. UT's victory was probably an inconveient
dose of reality... and they're likely still annoyed by it.

As Terry observed yesterday... he may, or may not, have scored well on a
test, but... Vince Young is not "football stupid."


Stu


Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 4:07:59 PM3/2/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> The simple truth is this: It must have been a very ordinary combine if the
> story that everyone is drumming on is Young's Wunderlic.

As ordinary as any other combine I would surmise. Unfortunately for
Young, any time a player with such an expectation of potential
greatness does something to leave doubt to the contrary, it ends up as
big news. Scoring a 6 on the Wunderlich means you're about as smart as
a tree stump. He took the test over and still scored a below average
for QB's 16.

> The big story aside from that is that Butler improved his standing
> significantly, placing him ahead of Young for teams looking for a
> traditional pocket passer. It's probably where he was rated by teams
> anyway, but the press hadn't "discovered" that yet.

Originally, Cutler was deemed somewhere as a low first round, possibly
even a second round pick. Now he may go higher than Young. IMO, the
teams finally saw enough tape and in person to determine his worth.

> Young's Wunderlic gave reporters an easy story and it got them all fed for a few days.
> They could stay out late and get up late because this is the story of the combine.
> Easy gig this year.

agreed.

> Let's see what happens after his workout in Austin. Frankly, I expect no
> major changes in his status.

that all depends on his workout. If he has a poor workout, he could
drop to the Raiders at #7 or possibly further but not much. If he has
a good workout, he could go #3.

> Tennessee's Steve McNair likes Young.

McNair probably doesn't have much say, he's not in the Titans plans
other than maybe the next 1-2 years at most.

> Norm Chow may love the guy and be telling porky-pies about his doubts. Or he may
> be telling the truth. If Chow is really stuck on his system, then he's
> probably condemned to mediocrity.

depends on who he drafts. If he takes Cutler and he pans out, then
they might not be mediocre. Either way, the Titans are a far cry from
being good enough to call mediocre.

> Great coaches look to put the best eleven
> players on each side of the ball and find systems for the players to do
> their best in. If Chow's that stuck on his system, he's going to end up
> just stuck. Systems don't win championships.

that's debateable. The Bears 4-6 D, the West Coast Offense, etc. all
were systems that helped bring Championships.

> At any rate, any talk about Young's precipitous fall as a result of a "poor
> combine" is prattle.

we'll find out on draft day.

> All he did was interview. Lots of teams talked with
> him and I have yet to hear that any of them felt they spent time with a
> dolt.

why would they? If they draft high they wouldn't want to talk bad
about him because it could make another team not want to trade up to
get him or lessen the value of their pick should they decide to trade
it. If the team drafts low, then why would they want to risk having a
player freefall and possibly limit that team from getting the player
they've targeted because another team that would have picked Young took
someone else that they wanted?

> The long and the short of the Wunderlic is that a 14 can get you a Dan
> Marino.

Marino scored a 16.

A 42 can get you a Drew Henson. A 15 gets you a Randall Cunningham.
> I'll take the "dummies."

Plenty good QB's had good scores too. Steve Young, Brady, Aikman, etc.

> If Young had scored a 40, do you think teams would shed all their doubts
> about his throwing motion, or about his propensity to run? Would it make
> him stronger under center?

no, but it would leave 1 less question mark than there is right now. A
questionable throwing motion, propensity to run and possible lack of
intelligence to learn and handle an NFL offense and read defenses...is
all that something you'd want to spend a #3 overall pick on?

> Would that have made him the star of the combine where he didn't work out?

actually it probably would have helped him out a lot in an otherwise
ordinary combine. It's all about creating the "buzz" around a player
that makes him rise up the draft board.

> Sheesh. It's tiresome reading all this crap about one dumb test and trying
> to make of it the result of a guy's combine. The combine is not about
> mental gymnastics.

two dumb tests. The combine is about determining if a player is smart
enough to learn your system or not before you draft him.

> One thing that evaluators will sit and think about is that at Vandy Cutler
> never faced the pressure that Young faced in two Rose Bowls and at
> Columbus.

so now you're going back to the 2 game sample size that you gave me
shit over previously.

> Or facing disastrous upset bids two years running by Ok. St.

wow, could you possibly make more out of nothing than you do in these 2
"comebacks"? Ok. St. had average defenses at best both years, its not
like he did it against a great defense.

>Or having to play in a conference championship game in order to reach the big
> one.

LOL, that makes him so much better.

>Vandy doesn't play in big games.

because they are not a good team, and it will be difficult for them to
ever be with an undergraduate student population of approximately 6300.
They are a small school. The SEC is also a more difficult conference
from top to bottom.

>That "what if" has been answered by Young. You can hug your Wunderlic, I'll go by everything else.

you clearly arent going by everything else. Certainly not his
questionable throwing motion, average arm strength or the simplified
offense that Texas ran. You like him because you've seen him play in
person and are blinded by it.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 5:27:24 PM3/2/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> you clearly arent going by everything else. Certainly not his
> questionable throwing motion, average arm strength or the simplified
> offense that Texas ran. You like him because you've seen him play in
> person and are blinded by it.

ROTFLOL!!!!

I watched Chris Simms play as many games in person as I did Vince Young and have nowhere near the same
impression of Simms.

Trust me, I have other measures. I've seen more of him than the Wunderlic result and questions you've
seen in articles that are mostly writers quoting other guys who don't know a lot. If the questions
about Young were that serious, he'd be getting looked at as a good pick as an "athlete," not as a QB.
He'd be another Antwon Randle-El.

And Marino did not score 16, he scored 14.

You need to take something for your factophobia.

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 2, 2006, 11:02:01 PM3/2/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> > Looneyt0on wrote:

> > you clearly arent going by everything else. Certainly not his
> > questionable throwing motion, average arm strength or the simplified
> > offense that Texas ran. You like him because you've seen him play in
> > person and are blinded by it.

> ROTFLOL!!!!

> I watched Chris Simms play as many games in person as I did Vince Young and have nowhere near the same
> impression of Simms.

well, you're blinded for some other reason then, but you've avoided
giving out those reasons like you're guarding some big secret.

> Trust me, I have other measures.

like what? Like your intuition? If so, just say you're full of shit
and we can both move on. I've already stated several reasons as to why
I think he's overrated and might very well become a bust and all you
can give out is that you have "other measures".

> I've seen more of him than the Wunderlic result and questions you've
> seen in articles that are mostly writers quoting other guys who don't know a lot.

I saw him play 3-4 games this year, including the Rose Bowl. Saw him
make some impressive throws and saw him make some bad ones. If he
wasn't a running QB, he'd be a 3rd or 4th round talent at most. What
round do you think he'd be drafted in if he wasn't a running QB and
posted the stats he did?

> If the questions about Young were that serious, he'd be getting looked at as a good pick as an "athlete," not as a QB.
> He'd be another Antwon Randle-El.

you're giving GM's too much credit. Michael Vick is still a QB when he
should be a WR...Young is looked at as more of an "athlete", as most of
the praise is based around his running and athletic ability and most of
the criticisms of him are based on his throwing mechanics and questions
on ability to read defenses or learn the offense.

> And Marino did not score 16, he scored 14.

from
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/04/17/life_of_reilly/

"Teams aren't supposed to release the scores, but they're usually
leaked anyway. Among quarterbacks Brian Griese is said to have scored a
39, Drew Bledsoe 37, Steve Young 33, John Elway 30, Troy Aikman 29,
Cade McNown 28, Mark Brunell 22, Tim Couch 22, Trent Dilfer 22, Brett
Favre 22, Daunte Culpepper 21, Vinny Testaverde 18, Dan Marino 16..."

from leaguemate.com:

"Brian Griese 39
Akili Smith 37- but is suspected of cheating because the first time
he took the test he got a 15
Tom Brady 33
Steve Young 33
John Elway 30
Brett Favre 22
Dan Marino 16
Jeff George 10"

there's a hundred others that says he scored a 16. There are also ones
that say he scored a 14.

> You need to take something for your factophobia.

I back up my facts with links. I'm waiting to see your "other
measures" are.

Bobby Galvez

unread,
Mar 3, 2006, 10:57:09 AM3/3/06
to

Looneyt0on wrote:

> I saw him play 3-4 games this year, including the Rose Bowl.

Oh crikey! The voice of authority! All of 3-4 games, ey!


> Saw him
> make some impressive throws and saw him make some bad ones. If he
> wasn't a running QB, he'd be a 3rd or 4th round talent at most. What
> round do you think he'd be drafted in if he wasn't a running QB and
> posted the stats he did?

"If he wasn't ..." If ... if .... if ....

Tell me, you're one of those guys who thinks Barry Sanders was ordinary because IF you take away the long runs the stats
from the rest of his runs are mediocre ... right?

You're one of the members of the "Yeah But If You Take Away The This Then What?" Club, aren't you?

The FACT is Young is what he is, not what he isn't.

Because he can run, because he has very good size, because he posted results under pressure he is high first round talent.
All of your volume of doubts and "ifs" won't change that.

> > If the questions about Young were that serious, he'd be getting looked at as a good pick as an "athlete," not as a QB.
> > He'd be another Antwon Randle-El.
>
> you're giving GM's too much credit. Michael Vick is still a QB when he
> should be a WR...

Says you, right? Says you on the authority of it's you talking, right? We need no more than that.

Wow.


> Young is looked at as more of an "athlete", as most of
> the praise is based around his running and athletic ability and most of
> the criticisms of him are based on his throwing mechanics and questions
> on ability to read defenses or learn the offense.

I haven't seen a single team talk about taking him as an athlete. Neither have you.

He's being looked at as a QB. It helps that he's got very good mobility. It balances what they all claim he lacks.


> there's a hundred others that says he scored a 16. There are also ones
> that say he scored a 14.

SkidMaaaaaaaaaaaark says he scored 14. If that's good enough for SkidMaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark, it should be good enough for you.

I posted a scan of an article in the paper showing Marino's score to be 14. It's in the Wunderlic thread.


> > You need to take something for your factophobia.
>
> I back up my facts with links. I'm waiting to see your "other
> measures" are.

Nope. It would make your head explode if I did.

Young's pro day will be soon enough. Nobody will be talking about his Wunderlic then.

If he posts a slow 40 and throws poorly, that will plummet his stock. If he runs fast and throws well we'll see the press
hit the "drool" switch. The Wunderlic will be forgotten, and he'll once again be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or a
highly rated prospect with a disappointing workout. Either way, the talk will be about what he can do physically, not about
a mental agility drill.

You can meanwhile start drafting a memo to the Falcons telling them they're playing a guy more suited to WR at QB .... they
probably need a long, loud laugh. And, by the way, I'd love to hear what your measures are to back up that statement. It's a
fair guess that you saw him play 3 or 4 times ...

BobbyG

Looneyt0on

unread,
Mar 3, 2006, 2:57:30 PM3/3/06
to
Bobby Galvez wrote:

> > Looneyt0on wrote:

> > I saw him play 3-4 games this year, including the Rose Bowl.

> Oh crikey! The voice of authority! All of 3-4 games, ey!

3-4 games is plenty to see of a college player to know what he can and
what he cannot do. I saw him at his best in the Rose Bowl, if I saw
more of him, I'd likely be even less impressed by him.

> > Saw him
> > make some impressive throws and saw him make some bad ones. If he
> > wasn't a running QB, he'd be a 3rd or 4th round talent at most. What
> > round do you think he'd be drafted in if he wasn't a running QB and
> > posted the stats he did?

> "If he wasn't ..." If ... if .... if ....

nice job not answering the question, you do it often. The point there
was that if he wasnt a running QB, then he'd be nothing more than a mid
round pick.

> Tell me, you're one of those guys who thinks Barry Sanders was ordinary because IF you take away the long runs the stats
> from the rest of his runs are mediocre ... right?

nope, Sanders had the ability to break a run on any carry, even if he
didn't.

> You're one of the members of the "Yeah But If You Take Away The This Then What?" Club, aren't you?

no, just posing a hypothetical for you, but since you're not even
capable of answering why you think Young will be a good QB, it was
obviously too much to ask you a hypothetical. Asking you anything
appears to be too much.

> The FACT is Young is what he is, not what he isn't.

yes, he is a player with average arm strength, etc. The only thing
where he is above average is as a runner.

> Because he can run, because he has very good size, because he posted results under pressure he is high first round talent.

and NONE of that has any bearing on whether he'll be a success in the
NFL. Remember Dan McGwire? He was huge, how'd his size work out for
him? Danny Wuerffel posted results under pressure, how did that work
out for him?

> All of your volume of doubts and "ifs" won't change that.

and all of your secret reasons why he'll be a good player won't change
that Young will likely end up a bust.

> > > If the questions about Young were that serious, he'd be getting looked at as a good pick as an "athlete," not as a QB.
> > > He'd be another Antwon Randle-El.

> > you're giving GM's too much credit. Michael Vick is still a QB when he
> > should be a WR...

> Says you, right? Says you on the authority of it's you talking, right? We need no more than that.

says anyone that can look at statistics and has watched Vick play.
Vick is a INT and fumble machine. He's inaccurate and a poor passer.
A career 54.1% completions and 12 and 13 INT's the last 2 years and 16
and 11 fumbles. The Falcons are getting worse now and Vick is running
less. Having someone that could get him the ball in the open field
would make the Falcons a better team.

> > Young is looked at as more of an "athlete", as most of
> > the praise is based around his running and athletic ability and most of
> > the criticisms of him are based on his throwing mechanics and questions
> > on ability to read defenses or learn the offense.

> I haven't seen a single team talk about taking him as an athlete. Neither have you.

they all mention that he's a great athlete, genius. You're so obtuse
that you think that only "we'd take him because he's an athlete" will
prove you wrong here.

> He's being looked at as a QB. It helps that he's got very good mobility. It balances what they all claim he lacks.

his mobility is the only thing preventing him from being a mid round
pick like I said in a previous post, which you still cannot grasp.

> > there's a hundred others that says he scored a 16. There are also ones
> > that say he scored a 14.

> SkidMaaaaaaaaaaaark says he scored 14. If that's good enough for SkidMaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaark, it should be good enough for you.

who the fuck cares what skidmark says?

> I posted a scan of an article in the paper showing Marino's score to be 14. It's in the Wunderlic thread.

and I posted a few links showing that he scored a 16, which you
snipped.

> > > You need to take something for your factophobia.

> > I back up my facts with links. I'm waiting to see your "other
> > measures" are.

> Nope. It would make your head explode if I did.

in other words, you have nothing but your "intuition". You're
certainly not willing to back what you say. I knew you wouldn't be
able to come up with anything.

> Young's pro day will be soon enough. Nobody will be talking about his Wunderlic then.

yeah, they may be talking about his average arm in addition.

> If he posts a slow 40 and throws poorly, that will plummet his stock. If he runs fast and throws well we'll see the press
> hit the "drool" switch. The Wunderlic will be forgotten, and he'll once again be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Or a
> highly rated prospect with a disappointing workout. Either way, the talk will be about what he can do physically, not about
> a mental agility drill.

I didn't say his Wonderlic test would affect his draft status
signficantly. If you can recall (I'll restate it anyway since you
probably can't), I have repeatedly said his arm strength, simplified
college system, etc. were what would affect his draft slot.

> You can meanwhile start drafting a memo to the Falcons telling them they're playing a guy more suited to WR at QB ....

no need to burst their bubble or make them a better team, I don't
really like them.

> they probably need a long, loud laugh. And, by the way, I'd love to hear what your measures are to back up that statement.

of course you would, and unlike you I provided it above. You'd love to
hear any measures since you're not capable of providing any on your own
account to back up why you think Young will be a good pro.

>It's a fair guess that you saw him play 3 or 4 times ...

its a fair guess I saw him play 16 times last year, gotta love the
directv sunday ticket. Come on, provide some measure of facts and
words to back your opinions up because so far you're little more than a
speed bump.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages