Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...
It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...
They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...
It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...
They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.
Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...
It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...
They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.
I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.
If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.
And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.
Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...
It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...
They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.
I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.
If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.
And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.
Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...
It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...
They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.
I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.
If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.
And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.
Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.
Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.
Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.
Cool story bro.
Still doesn't reference how he would bounce the ball off of a cheerleaders ass with a deep wide open receiver.
It's heartening to see that not everyone has forgotten just how hard Locker sucked as a QB.
Since we're dealing in hypos, what if Lockner had been a consensus AA free safety? would sark still be coaching UW without those embarrassing defensive collapses that marked his tenure?
Comments
Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.
He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.
Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.
Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?
If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.
And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.
Blah Blah Blah Fuck off.
in other news, if i was 100 million dollars richer, i'd be fucking kate upton.
had i picked the right powerball tickets, i'd be fucking kate upton.
if we were undefeated, kate upton would be fucking me
What non-inbred family does that?!
Still doesn't reference how he would bounce the ball off of a cheerleaders ass with a deep wide open receiver.