The Tankathon thread,i.e., the 2026 Draft

[KillerRaider30]

https://www.tankathon.com/nfl

[Attyla]

A lot of fake stories on Facebook. See them on the Raiders all the time.

I saw one that said we were an NFL team, bastards

[chucker]

G. Goff and M Stafford are both 6'4". The explains why they don't have multiple Lombardi's. Hah.

Mr. Anquales: You were wrong on the draft stuff about the O-linemen. Look it up.

Maybe saying you "lie" all the time is a bit of an exaggeration but you get a lot of stuff wrong, twist it, abuse facts, etc. to make your points. That is why so many people take you on in this Forum. We need differing viewpoints, but your viewpoint is so often distorted or nonfactual that if appears like you are doing it on purpose to bicker with folks.

Yep.

[Oaktownonly]

Paxton Lynch and Brock Osweiler were both over 6' 5" and won multiple Super,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, wait, hold on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ah nevermind.

[Willmark]

I wonder if the grease traps at Taco Bell have been cleaned? Might explain someone’s sudden burst of posting.

[chucker]

I wonder if the grease traps at Taco Bell have been cleaned? Might explain someone’s sudden burst of posting.

We just installed self cleaning grease traps so I have extra time on my hands.

[mranquales]

Oops, I typed Manning instead of Brees.

So what exactly does 20/25 years mean? Mahomes has won 3. Brees, Stafford, Rodgers, Hurts, Wilson. That's 8 - I hadn't bothered to list everyone, but your math just doesn't work. As usual. 5 of the last 6 SBs have been won by "outliers" under 6-3.

Stafford isn't under 6'3.

Maybe 6-4 is now the outlier and it's too tall? I don't really believe that, but 6-4 is not some magic number, either way.

7 out of 25 is 28%. That means the 7 QBs are the outlier.

This is the same scouting method that convinces someone that Kelee Ringo is actually an NFL CB.

He's better than Bennett, so I'd say that scouting method works.

[Attyla]

2 QBs in the last 25 years have one more than three SBs, one is over and one is under.

That is not an outlier.

Using the IQR method, which is the most commonly agreed upon mathematical application: An outlier is a data point far from others, often identified using the 1.5 * IQR rule: values below Q1 - 1.5(IQR) or above Q3 + 1.5(IQR) are outliers, where Q1 is the 25th percentile, Q3 is the 75th, and IQR (Interquartile Range) is Q3-Q1. In a normal distribution, values beyond 3 standard deviations (Z-score > 3) are considered outliers, making up about 0.3% of data, but the IQR method is more general for any dataset.

By definition 28% exceeds that and thus is not an outlier.

[mranquales]

G. Goff and M Stafford are both 6'4". The explains why they don't have multiple Lombardi's. Hah.

Goff has been to multiple Conference Championship games and a Super Bowl.

Matt Stafford has a SB ring.

I don't think that hit like you thought it would.

Mr. Anquales: You were wrong on the draft stuff about the O-linemen. Look it up.

Expound?

Maybe not the exact year but the point remains solid. I am noticing a pattern with the semantical counter arguments.

The Raiders have been drafting Oline men over BPA. Gruden took OL with his first-round pick in two drafts. It doesn't work.

Great Line play includes coaching, chemistry, motivation, and experience. Drafting a gauntlet of linemen won't do anything as long as:

A. They don't gain experience via playing time.

B. They don't play their natural positions.

C. They aren't motivated to perform exceptionally because they don't have a leader to rally behind (QB).

There are several linemen drafted by the Raiders (off and def) who appeared to be subpar and then went on to perform well for another team. What does that tell you?

Maybe saying you "lie" all the time is a bit of an exaggeration

It absolutely is.

but you get a lot of stuff wrong, twist it, abuse facts, etc. to make your points.

The difference is I don't play semantics and nitpick every little thing, so long as the overarching point is logically sound. I literally had a counterpoint that was incorrect about a QB's name. Now if I wanted to be semantical, I could call that poster a liar. But nah.

[Attyla]

You mean mathematically? 28% of a subgroup is not an outlier. It is like when you express an opinion and call it a fact.

The math says you are wrong, not me.

[chucker]

Stafford isn't under 6'3.



7 out of 25 is 28%. That means the 7 QBs are the outlier.



He's better than Bennett, so I'd say that scouting method works.

Bennett was ahead of Ringo on the depth chart..... as was basically everyone else they could find. Ringo only plays when they are devastated by injuries. And that's not saying Bennett is great, just better than some guy whose only value is in getting things off the tops of the kitchen cupboards.

Stafford is listed at 6-3 - so well below the 6-4 threshold for a SB QB obviously. He measured at 6-2 1/4 at the combine though so that's the most objective measure. He clearly sucks because of his height.

8 of the last 25 SB winning QBs are under 6-4, regardless of whether Stafford is 6-2 or 6-3. And 4 winners in a row and 5 of the last 6 SB winners are under 6-4. It's just not a metric to rely on. Like most traits, there's not a hard and fast rule.

Really the point is that you just don't appear to care if you have any "facts" correct. You just make them up. That's not really a revelation, I just feel the need to say it about once a year. I'm over it for a while again.

[Attyla]

Bennett was ahead of Ringo on the depth chart..... as was basically everyone else they could find. Ringo only plays when they are devastated by injuries. And that's not saying Bennett is great, just better than some guy whose only value is in getting things off the tops of the kitchen cupboards.

Stafford is listed at 6-3 - so well below the 6-4 threshold for a SB QB obviously. He measured at 6-2 1/4 at the combine though so that's the most objective measure. He clearly sucks because of his height.

8 of the last 25 SB winning QBs are under 6-4, regardless of whether Stafford is 6-2 or 6-3. And 4 winners in a row and 5 of the last 6 SB winners are under 6-4. It's just not a metric to rely on. Like most traits, there's not a hard and fast rule.

Really the point is that you just don't appear to care if you have any "facts" correct. You just make them up. That's not really a revelation, I just feel the need to say it about once a year. I'm over it for a while again.

does every fanbase have as many nutbars as we do?

[chucker]

does every fanbase have as many nutbars as we do?

yes, but we have way more under 5-8.

[islandboy]

yes, but we have way more under 5-8.

This may be true, but I started off at 5-10 now approaching 60, I am maybe 5-8 with shoes, so I resemble this remark.

[Raidernation1979]

G. Goff and M Stafford are both 6'4". The explains why they don't have multiple Lombardi's. Hah.

Mr. Anquales: You were wrong on the draft stuff about the O-linemen. Look it up.

Maybe saying you "lie" all the time is a bit of an exaggeration but you get a lot of stuff wrong, twist it, abuse facts, etc. to make your points. That is why so many people take you on in this Forum. We need differing viewpoints, but your viewpoint is so often distorted or nonfactual that if appears like you are doing it on purpose to bicker with folks.

Depending on the source stafford is 6’2” or 6’3”

[vtraider]

This may be true, but I started off at 5-10 now approaching 60, I am maybe 5-8 with shoes, so I resemble this remark.

I started at 6 ft had 2 fusions and over 50. I'm but there yet but getting close