Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FAX
That raises an interesting issue, Mr. Direckshun. I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, "arm" is more important than "head" in the form of field experience or good decision-making under pressure?
I think I'd rather have a quarterback with less "arm" and more "head" as opposed to very little "head" and giant gobs of "arm". Less "head" probably equates to fewer first downs, TOP, and increased turnovers although I suppose one could make the argument that less "arm" might also lead to underthrows, soft balls, and easy picks. Very little "head" also causes problems in seeing the field since your eye sockets are almost even with the faceguard which restricts field vision. Then again, no "arm" makes it difficult to reach under center. Still, given the choice between "head" and "arm", I think I'd have to go with "head" even though "arm" is good and all.
FAX
|
Look at the really successful QBs. Montana and Brady excelled because of head and drive more than arm. Peyton has the arm but his head is what makes him special (Harrison and Wayne don't hurt either). It doesn't matter if you can throw the ball 50 yards down field if you're throwing it to the other team or even just up for grabs. Pocket presence and defense reading are also more important.
__________________
4. Performance enhancing drugs:
A) are my ticket to the Hall of Fame.
B) would be better if they tasted like fruit and were shaped like various Flintstones characters.
C) are not for me, because I find that cocaine aids my performance much more effectively.
D) apparently worked for Rodney Harrison.
|