nostyle126

The verdict? THEY'RE SLOW. So maybe their athleticism is challenged, but they fail miserably in terms of speed. But they're still athletes, right?

As I've stated earlier in this thread, I still believe Trent can develop into a good QB. Having said that, I also agree with the above post. We need a veteran NOW to help stabilize the franchise in the short term. If we can pick up a McNabb or even a Garcia it would be a necessary short term step in the right direction.

a) It really doesn't. Brees and Manning hardly have cannons. b) Agreed. Gotta coach him back to being ballsy. c) Both were given better supporting casts and coaching to help them along, and Brees STILL almost fell off the face of the football earth until Rivers decided to hold out his rookie year.

Having said all that, I will also say that he will likely never realize his full potential in Buffalo because of the climate...just like Manning or Brees wouldn't realize their full potential in Buffalo. Trent would look better if he played in the sunbelt or a dome, due to his limited arm strength. Buffalo needs a QB with a rocket arm just to survive the windy games that will inevitably come later in the season.

Trent has shown us flashes of greatness. Yes, I think that with a quality offensive line and a sound offensive system he'd be a good QB in time. He is shell shocked right now. Part of the problem is that he has been coached to be too careful. The other part of the problem is that he's been rocked by some hits thanks to bad blocking. He's gunshy. In time, with good coaching, he could rebound to the Trent we knew before the Arizona game...and then from there he could continue to grow into an even better, more experienced QB. I still believe that. We give up on QBs too fast around here. We all admit that our receivers are average and our o-line sucks, but we want to throw the baby out with the bath water every year when we scream for a new QB too.

You guys realize that Trent Edwards has pretty much the same skill set as Brees and Manning, right? The difference is that: a) he hasn't been given all the weapons brees and manning have b) he doesn't get to play in a dome c) he hasn't been given time to develop the way they were d) he hasn't been giving quality, stable coaching I still think that if you give Edwards a real coaching staff and a better climate, he'd turn into a quality QB in time.

+ infinity

Milloy was still a decent safety when we acquired him. Just because the Pats cut a guy doesn't mean they can't still be more productive than what we currently have on our roster. Would you not take Adam Vinatieri after they cut him? How about Seymour after they traded him? The Pats make a lot of ballsy roster decisions that sometimes result in good players getting the axe.

both of these guys would bring an edge that our defense could use. We're anything but edgy right now.

Maybin took part in a program specifically designed to get him to grade out well at the combine. http://www.powertrainsports.com/combine-tr...php#aaronmaybin We're looking at a 220-pound guy who put on 30 pounds of muscle and trained specifically to look good at the combine...and after the Bills got suckered into drafting him he 'deflated'.

By your own definition an offensive lineman may be "quick", but you cannot say they are "fast". And while hands may be used in blocking, I hardly think it is at a level which would allow us to evaluate "hand eye coordination" from an athletic sense. As to golf, I'm not sure I disagree with you. Golf is such a 'delicate' sport it's hard to give it much credit for the 'rigors' its competitors face. There is complete silence from the gallery while they swing. A caddy carries their clubs as they walk from hole to hole. It's not exactly rough. But certainly there is skill to it...core strength, hand eye coordination, power, I'll give you those. IMO there are probably just enough elements of athleticism to golf to call it a sport.

But I guess my point is that I'm not sure there is a single sport that truly tests every dimension of athleticism that you named. Lots of non-athletes play football, by your definition. Linemen, kickers, punters, and quarterbacks have very specific skill sets that don't meet your criteria. Therefore football isn't a sport. How about baseball? Baseball pitchers hardly ever show the athleticism necessary to qualify them as athletes. It's also hard to say that baseball players are agile. Almost all the movements in baseball are straight line running...can you really determine agility from this? So again you have non-athletes playing baseball...meaning it's not a sport? Tennis? Tennis players show incredible agility, dexterity, hand-eye coordination, but they're quick, not necessarily fast. They play on very tight dimensions, so you might call a tennis player quick, but can you really judge if they're fast? And what about their strength? Isn't tennis a rather limited test of strength? How about Soccer? Can you really tell how strong soccer players are? Sure, they are fast with strong legs, great dexterity, eye-foot coordination...but what about upper body strength? It barely comes into play. Another non-sport, but your definition. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a sport that DOESN'T have non-athletes, by your definition. What sport so thoroughly measures athleticism across the board? Hockey? A good candidate, but how strong do you have to be? Is Derek Roy strong? Nathan Gerbe? Perhaps basketball? Basketball is a decent candidate, but again, does it really measure strength? Dominant players are surely strong, but there are lots of NBA players that don't exactly have bragging rights in the gym. IMO your definition of a sport is too stringent, if a single sport must reveal ALL of these elements.

The dome and the sideline reaction needed to be better. Other than that I guess it was fine, for what it was meant to be.

Define "fast" for me then. Are you referring to foot speed?

I've heard good things.

Duffs are the best. La Nova's are great too, but their specialty is really their bbq wings. Anchorbar is a tourist attraction with okay wings, adequate sandwiches, and horrific pizza...but if we're talking wings only, Anchorbar's are okay but don't even deserve to be in the same conversation as Duff's.

Agreed. He's worth as high as a second but if I were the Bills I'd offer our 3rd.

See, that's the thing. This video actually DOES reveal speed and quickness, but if you don't study professional armwrestling you can't see it. I will admit that hand-eye coordination isn't so much a part of armwrestling but dexterity, speed, quickness, power, strength, core strength, and smarts certainly are. It is VERY common that a superior armwrestler defeats a "stronger" opponent, because armwrestling does not simply pit strength against strength. There is far more going on, as difficult as it might be to tell in a vid like this. I don't know if this is gonna help, but check out another vid: These two guys are a bit lighter than the last two guys I posted, but they're two of the fastest armwrestlers out there. Within the first second of the "go" both have hit incredibly hard and with incredible speed/power that would normally have defeated an opponent with what is known as a "flash pin", because it would've happened so fast. But these two are pretty evenly matched, so the match continues. The guy on the right does a maneuver known as "toproll", putting incredible pressure on his opponent's hand (you can see this by the :01 mark when the guy on the right is already dropping his body and the guy on the left is about to have his wrist fold back). The match looks virtually over but the guy on the left does something amazing. He forces the match from a toproll into a hook match (the point of contact moves from the fingers...where he was losing...to being wrist-on-wrist, known as a hook) and brings the match back up to the middle of the table. Ultimately the guy on the right manages to pin the guy on the left, even in a hook (wrist-to-wrist), but this match demonstrates the initial speed necessary to take control of the match, incredible power required to exploit your opponent's weaknesses, the adjustments necessary to overcome bad positions and your opponent's strategy, and maybe most of all, core strength, as you can see both competitors are using their whole bodies, not just their arms. There is a lot going on there. More than meets the eye.

Give this a look-see. This is the best current right-handed armwrestler in the world, Devon Larratt (Canada) taking on the greatest armwrestler of all time (albeit he's past his prime), John Brzenk (USA). To the trained eye this matchup reveals the strength, speed, power, technique, dexterity, core strength, and mental aptitude (before and during the match) that IMO qualifies armwrestling as not just a competition, but a legitimate sport. But I have to admit, I'm a bit biased. You guys probably have a tough time actually seeing the finer details, if you've never armwrestled professionally before. There is a lot more than meets the eye going on.

I can tell! At least you're consistent.

Armwrestling is done standing up, typically. Having said that, a lot of activities that are considered sports are done while sitting...bobsled, luge, auto racing, equestrian events, and so on. Are running events, the kind that Usain Bolt dominates, a sport? They give you no indication of what the competitor is capable of with his upper body. So those aren't sports? Few sports, from start to finish, truly test all athletic abilities.

I think the crux of the issue is defining what an "athlete" is, and how that relates to what a "sport" is. Is Tony Stewart an athlete? Is Tiger Woods? Is Jared Lorenzen? Is Pat Williams? Is Usain Bolt? Does Bolt meet ANY of your requirements other than speed?

Okay, so apply that to armwrestling. Great armwrestlers are fast (Cobra Rhodes, Corey Miller, Allen Fisher, etc), quick (Chad Silvers, Travis Bagent, etc), hand-eye coordination (Ron Bath is IMO the master of hand manipulation), dexterity (EVERY good armwrestler has this), not to mention, obviously, strength and power...but one thing I would also add is quick thinking. Armwrestling requires you to analyse your opponent much like a QB has to read a defense pre-snap. You have to read your opponent's grip and body positioning to identify what technique they plan to use against you. IMO it has a lot of elements that make it a sport. Does the fact that you do not run or skate make it a non-sport?

I was just curious for some responses because it's a hobby of mine.

It can be.