Thanks to
extempore, I now know that "efficable" is not a word. I've been using it for a good six years or so; used it in my classes, in myriad persuasion speeches, etc. For the record, the word I was intending to use was "efficacious." I'm sure I picked it up from common use in the forensic community. Thus, if you are in forensics, please stop using "efficable." Spread the word!
As long as that word isn't "efficable."
The sportswriters today are sounding the deathknell of the pocket-passer. Yes, Vince Young had a huge game last night; Heisman-worthy, if you ask me, and certainly yet another argument for holding Heisman voting post-bowls. Yet I recognize that knell. I heard it when Randall Cunningham took over for the Eagles. I heard it when Michael Vick was drafted by the Falcons. Yeah, I heard it when Eric Crouch won the Heisman Trophy. I hear it a lot. Does it mean anything? Maybe we can ask Peyton Manning, easily the NFL's top quarterback for the past three years. (Sorry, Tom Brady.) What people forget is that NFL defensive players are so superior speed-wise that while mobile quarterbacks have several advantages over pocket passers, those advantages are diminished considerable compared to the college game.
Of course, if a scrambling quarterback has the same skill set as a pocket passer -- the same intelligence, field vision, and discipline -- then you'll have the greatest quarterback ever. We haven't seen that human yet. Maybe we never will. But to say that the days of the pocket passer are numbered is complete bunk. Put down the crack pipe, sportswriters. The world isn't your personal game of EA Sports.
