re: I’ll take Nuss over all the dual threat qb’s right now

quote:

---

When you buy into this ever shifting definition of what DT means

---

You are the only one confused by that, it seems

Oh yea, because you can’t get it to fit your narrative

You’ve already dismissed athleticism and gone with statistics which is simply a proportional measure. If college statistics is the determination in this case it has no merit since there have been elite running QB who have put up in some cases 3x fewer yards than players who are far inferior runners and some QBs who aren’t DT putting up more yards than elite NFL DT QBs. So again what is your standard?

You not being able to understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.

If college stats are your standard which is what you’ve argued here it’s a measure of proportion meaning there’s a cutoff from non DT to DT QBs. That in turn means more numbers equals more DT but that’s faulty because you have guys like Jonny Manziel running for 3-4x as many yards as a Micheal Vick or a Josh Allen. You have Alex Smith running for more yards than Justin Fields. Your standard doesn’t hold water.

I agree with most of that, I’d add that in college a lot of those numbers were determined by strength of opponent and the strength of your roster to pull attention away from some of those QBs. In other words some players can pickup a lot of yards vs poor teams who can’t account for them just being mobile. Imo I’d call a DT QB someone who can threaten you equally both ways, that you have to gameplan for their legs also.

quote:

---

That in turn means more numbers equals more DT but that’s faulty because you have guys like Jonny Manziel running for 3-4x as many yards as a Micheal Vick or a Josh Allen. You have Alex Smith running for more yards than Justin Fields

---

ok, now what about Peyton Maning who had -181 career rushing yards at Tennesee?

Johnny Manziel is a dual threat, but Michale Vick is not. Are Michael Vick and Peyton Maning pocket passers?




Im sorry you can't comprehend this with an nuance

Again, the very basic understanding would start with discerning what a pocket passer is. That is simple. Or do you need that defined too?

Anyone that is not a pocket passer is on the spectrum of mobile quarterbacking. All mobile QBs do not have to be lumped together, which seems hard for you to understand. Joe Burrow is not Johnny Manziel but they are moth mobile QB's.

Had Michael Vick been in college in 2024, he certainly would have some insane rushing numbers. Or even a dedicated option offense like Nebraska ran in the 90's. Instead they allowed him to throw more, because he had a great arm. He certainly had designed running plays but a ton of his running yardage came from scrambling.

Do I need to explain to you how Johnny Manziel's offense was different, and why he would have larger rushing numbers? Or are you good?

quote:

---

The offense doesn’t dictate what the QB is dipshit and imaginary scenarios don’t either.

---

if Michael Vick played in the offense Cam Newtown or Johnny Manziel or evenTim Tebow played in, his rushing numbers would be insane.


None of that dictates what any of them are. They are already athletic, mobile QBs.

It certainly would have affected Vick's rushing stats, though.

If he had say late 90’s Rich Rodriguez and not Ricky bustle they would have been unstoppable

Jeez that would’ve been unreal. Then he gets stuck with Dan Reeves and Mora after that. Not exactly cutting edge offensive minds.