Meet the 2013 Tennessee Titans
Comments
-
Griese was in 1997 though. Brady era was 1998 and 1999.Houhusky said:
you guys are correct about Tom Brady, Typo...He_Needs_More_Time said:
Yea I was going to say that as well. Why I highlighted it hoping someone with a computer would post his actual W-L.RoadDawg55 said:There's no way Tom Brady won only 50% of his games in college. He was basically a two year starter (I know Henson made a few starts as well) and Michigan went 10-3 and 10-2 in those two years (98 & 99). I can't find how many games Brady started but he attempted way more passes than Henson, so I am assuming he started the vast majority of them.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tom-brady-1.html
1998 - 10-3
1997 - 12-0
88% -
Once again we have someone posting incorrect stats.
Please show me how Jake's winning % was 23%??
It was actually 36% (15-27). 46% (12-14) in the non Try Losingham era.
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs???? -
Houhusky said:
Jack Lockner - 23%
Only at Washington does winning less than 25% of your games make you a fucking legend. -
Ty before Jack- 72-67IrishDawg22 said:
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Ty with Jack- 4-21
Perhaps ya boi Jack was the anchor dragging down Husky Legend Ty Willingham. -
I sense some tongue in cheek, but I disagree. Ty took the UW job to get one more good payday. He basically gave up on coaching after he was fired from Notre Dame. I'm sure he was lazy at Stanford and Notre Dame, but I doubt he put in as little effort there as he did at UW.TheKobeStopper said:
Ty before Jack- 72-67IrishDawg22 said:
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Ty with Jack- 4-21
Perhaps ya boi Jack was the anchor dragging down Husky Legend Ty Willingham.
-
Passion? true?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Challenging a person's knowledge because they never coached or GMed is a classic Doog move. Idiots on Doogman have done that for over a decade straight now.IrishDawg22 said:
Hold the phone. So, when I express my opinion I am "too dense to argue with". Yet when I challenge that person's football knowledge I am using the "Doog handbook".He_Needs_More_Time said:
You've repeated every line from the Doog script. You even resorted to calling out a poster for not being an NFL GM when you couldn't respond to his facts.IrishDawg22 said:
Do you follow Nascar? I usually only see this high level drafting at Daga or Daytona? Sure hope some of the top posters don't stop quickly, because your head is going to be inserted in a painful position.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Damn I forgot to put this in my doog myths topic. Whenever a Doog can't argue his point using facts he'll passively aggressively mock you by stating "what do you know? Are you a head coach or GM? Yea that's what I thought".IrishDawg22 said:
I bet every opposing head coach that went up against Jake would rate him above average as a COLLEGE QB.DerekJohnson said:Anyone who is truly attempting to argue that Jake was an above average quarterback is too dense to argue with.
But once again I will defer to your knowledge because I am sure you have a better handle on the game then most coaches.
Please, just 1 original thought. If you quit following along like a Zombie and repeating talking points, you just might stumble upon one.
Your level of pressing is exactly why banning Harv was stupid.
And I have provided more stats than anyone in this thread.
Nice job with the talking points.
Thanks for proving my point about the original thought. But it's much easier just to call someone a Doog an move on. That is really clever.
Maybe you should quit trying to ride the coattails of others.
Unless you're a GM of a NFL team, you have no right to justify the stupidity of wasting a top ten pick on Lockner.
You provided a lot of cherrypicked stats that are all neatly summarized in one standard stat that you didn't like. Impressive if I compare you to a typical poster of your ilk, but that's like comparing Sark to Ty.
Jake is a legend because the media and fans wanted him to be, even though the black quarterback before him was just as good as he was and the black quarterback after him is significantly better.
The best part about guilty white Seattle liberals is how racist they actually are. -
Jack won the Holiday Bowl guys...
Please proceed to carry out your agenda but please quit making shit up. -
Nobody hates Jake. He's just not a very good quarterback. Hopefully his wife is investing their money wisely.IrishDawg22 said:
The hate for Jake cracks me up.
-
free pub!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Jake's in the record books because he started 40 games. He accumulated numbers by playing a lot, not by playing well.IrishDawg22 said:
My God, does anyone on here know anything about Husky football? Go get a coffee and browse through the Husky record book.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Dude was 15-25 as a starting QB in his Husky career. If that makes him a legend, that means the football program is more fucked than any of us feared.IrishDawg22 said:
Please take off you Sonny jersey before you post.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
It's not hate to point out how mediocre Jake Locker was as a college quarterback. The facts and the stats speak for themselves.IrishDawg22 said:
I bet you are one of these young Husky fans that talk about how great Sonny was @ QB. Even with those numbers and record, he is a Husky Legend after all.greenblood said:
How's Lockner doing for you on Madden 2014?IrishDawg22 said:I bet a lot of fans are glad this guy isn't a GM. What would he have done with these guys in their first couple of years...
Eli Manning 48% 53% 57% 56%
Peyton 56% 28 INT
Brees 59% 31 INTs 1st 2 full seasons
Flaco 57% in yr 4
The performances by RGIII and RW were very rare, and almost every QB in the history of the NFL would be considered a failure when compared to their rookie season.
Maybe give the guy more than 1 full season before Nostradumbass considers it a complete failure.
The hate for Jake cracks me up.
He IS a Husky Legend.
I noticed you don't bother to reference any of his stats...I can't imagine why.
You might see Jake's name once or twice.
So he played for 2 of the worst coaches in Husky history, but the record is put at his doorstep?
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Here are the career leaders by passer rating for Husky QBs (source, minimum 100 pass attempts):
Price - 138.9 (BENCH HIS BLACK ASS!!!!)
Moon - 134.9
Flick - 133.7
Hobert - 132.4
B. Huard - 131.3
D. Huard - 129.9
Pickett - 125.0
Cowan - 123.3
Stanback - 122.9
Tuiasosopo - 121.7
Locker - 119.0
Thanks for proving once again that Doogs hate stats and facts. The myth that Jake Locker was a legendary Husky is sickening. He was a white Stanback, at best (hi Golve!). -
He was actually 15-25 as starting QB and 12-13 in non Ty era. So even your own stats were wrong.IrishDawg22 said:Once again we have someone posting incorrect stats.
Please show me how Jake's winning % was 23%??
It was actually 36% (15-27). 46% (12-14) in the non Try Losingham era.
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Anyways still not great. -
Jack was 3-13 with Ty.........So many people posting incorrect stats in this thread my god.TheKobeStopper said:
Ty before Jack- 72-67IrishDawg22 said:
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Ty with Jack- 4-21
Perhaps ya boi Jack was the anchor dragging down Husky Legend Ty Willingham. -
For some reason I added 2 extra losses in 09'.He_Needs_More_Time said:
He was actually 15-25 as starting QB and 12-13 in non Ty era. So even your own stats were wrong.IrishDawg22 said:Once again we have someone posting incorrect stats.
Please show me how Jake's winning % was 23%??
It was actually 36% (15-27). 46% (12-14) in the non Try Losingham era.
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Anyways still not great.
So I think that makes him 12-12 under Sark, 5-7 Yr 1 and 7-5 Yr 2 (missed Oregon game). -
Yea he was 12-12 under Sark, I assumed you forgot the Price vs Oregon game so I just subtracted one loss.IrishDawg22 said:
For some reason I added 2 extra losses in 09'.He_Needs_More_Time said:
He was actually 15-25 as starting QB and 12-13 in non Ty era. So even your own stats were wrong.IrishDawg22 said:Once again we have someone posting incorrect stats.
Please show me how Jake's winning % was 23%??
It was actually 36% (15-27). 46% (12-14) in the non Try Losingham era.
Hmmm, I wonder what Try would have done to the winning % of those other QBs????
Anyways still not great.
So I think that makes him 12-12 under Sark, 5-7 Yr 1 and 7-5 Yr 2 (missed Oregon game).
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
