Mark Sanchez (#5pick) will have a more productive 2009/2010 season then #1 pick Matthew Stafford

My opponent quotes: "In the NFL there is no guarantee of completing the season healthy, and cons angle seems to be a good one, but the same statement can be made of Stafford. " It does not matter that the same statement can be made of Stafford. As my opponent has chosen to affirm the resolution, he must prove that no matter what happens, Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford. I have provided an instance when Stafford would be more productive than Sanchez, thus the resolution has already been negated. My opponent's absolute statement in the resolution has given him a heavy Burden of Proof that he has not reached. "I understand that the NFL has an air of uncertainty, but that is never the intention of the player. My goal is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, if both players go through the season playing all 16 games, Sanchez will have a more productive season. " If my opponent wanted to prove that Sanchez would have a better season if both players played a full season, then he should have stated that in his first round argument. Since my opponent failed to do so, I stuck to the resolution and proved that Sanchez will not necessarily have a better season than Stafford. It is both unfair and ridiculous to post a new restriction when my opponent did not bring up anything close to it at the beginning of the debate. My opponent's statement holds no water; therefore, we stick to the resolution and discuss the future possibilities in the season, without being a specific 16 games for each player. "(Players do not play to get hurt, so one must assume that they will play all 16 games)" One cannot assume that Sanchez and Stafford will play all 16 games this season. They both have chances of getting injured. It does not matter if players do not play to get hurt; there is still a chance for them to be injured during the season. ============ My opponent then goes on to list facts regarding Stafford, Sanchez, their teams, and several coaches. However, as these do not apply at all as to who will have a more productive season, they should be disregarded. In professional football, quarterbacks have tendencies to be hot for a many games or cold for many games. If Sanchez is cold the whole season while Stafford is not, then Sanchez will not have a more productive season than Stafford. Although Sanchez may have more impressive statistics regarding the preseason, we must take into account that it is only the preseason. Statistics in the preseason mean nothing to what happens in the regular season, which is the emphasis of this debate. My opponent cannot possibly prove that Sanchez will have a more productive season than Stafford, for Sanchez could get a season-injury or confront a cold streak that lasts for the rest of the season. The risks involved with regular season games (injuries or even negative media) may hinder Sanchez from performing, but may not have any effect on Stafford. Conclusively, my opponent cannot possibly uphold his Burden of Proof. ========== Conclusion: My opponent states, "Matthew Stafford is going to be a good quarterback, he might even be the better of the two when it is all said and done, but evidence is piled against him for the 2009/2010 seasons. " My opponent even admits that Stafford MIGHT be more productive than Sanchez, which contradicts his position and essentially leads my opponent to forfeit the debate. With my opponent voicing that Stafford might be more productive than Sanchez goes against the resolution. The word "will" in the resolution means that it will definitely happen without any chance of something else occurring otherwise. My opponent states that Stafford has a chance to become more productive than Sanchez, which gives way for possible opportunities and chances that are against the resolution. Once again, the statistics cannot be applied to the regular season, because there are too many factors that can happen to either one of them that can make those statistics insignificant. I thank my opponent and the audience for the debate. Clearly, my opponent has contradicted his stance on the debate and cannot affirm the resolution. I heavily urge a Con vote.