Tequilla Quick Thought
Comments
-
Last year yes! This year? Probably not....Pete would have him at LB by now with spot duty on special teams.Playing QB for Pete is haaaaaaard!
-
Keith would have them playing better
-
So Stanford, ASU, Zona, UCLA all wins with Locker?
At the start of the year, looking at the home schedule, returning players, experienced o-line, Miles with meaningful minutes last year, extra bowl practices, off season natty, and Pete's experience many saw 10 wins.
Locker cements it?
-
Without a 2000 yard back,no TE,mucked up WR corp and no Sark to chuck it too on 3rd and 3...KP wouldn't make it through the year with this group. Hell he didn't make it through with last years all stars
-
Think if you predicted Shelton, Shaq, Peters, playing at All AMerican level and Kikaha leading the nation in sacks what would you have predicted?
-
You win the Stanford game with just average QB play. Hard not to see Locker being able to make a play either with his arm/legs to be able to make a difference in that game.
We definitely beat Arizona with Locker as a couple of extra drives get finished off.
And given the way the ASU game went, you'd have to like the chances of Locker as a runner in that game combined with how Shaq was running. Not to mention that he'd have been a far better passing option than Williams was in that game.
UCLA? Who knows. Oregon? Probably not. But with the current offense, you're definitely looking at a situation that once a team gets 2 scores up on us that it's hard for the confidence of the team to be positive knowing that the offense is unlikely to come back. Even with both of those being losses, you're looking at 11-2 then. -
Miley fucking sucks
-
I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker -
10 in '10
-
Since Peterman contributed a great deal in both the Stanford and Arizona losses, I think a serviceable QB would have led the teams to victory, but not much more. Second guessing is tough. Hell, I'm in doubt we win another game this season.
-
Bullshit.Tequilla said:You win the Stanford game with just average QB play. Hard not to see Locker being able to make a play either with his arm/legs to be able to make a difference in that game.
We definitely beat Arizona with Locker as a couple of extra drives get finished off.
And given the way the ASU game went, you'd have to like the chances of Locker as a runner in that game combined with how Shaq was running. Not to mention that he'd have been a far better passing option than Williams was in that game.
UCLA? Who knows. Oregon? Probably not. But with the current offense, you're definitely looking at a situation that once a team gets 2 scores up on us that it's hard for the confidence of the team to be positive knowing that the offense is unlikely to come back. Even with both of those being losses, you're looking at 11-2 then.
That game was lost on 4 plays.
1 - Baby hands fumbling in the red zone ... Lockner was notorious for choking in the red zone.
2 - Baby hands fumbling right before the half ... Lockner would have turned it over at some point too.
3 - The holding call on 4th down that lead to...
4 - The women's soccer team manager walking in for the score.
Lockner would have had the same result as Baby Hands in half the game changing plays. -
Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off
-
you sound eerily similar to Race.Rapeculturedawg said:Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off
-
One of his dads.jecornel said:
you sound eerily similar to Race.Rapeculturedawg said:Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off
-
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? -
He was also 2-2 in those games where he threw for under 100 yards passing.RoadDawg55 said:I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker -
Because Polk went off in both of those games. Locker sucked.Tequilla said:
He was also 2-2 in those games where he threw for under 100 yards passing.RoadDawg55 said:I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker -
The best play in the playbook for Locker was ALWAYS the handoff to Polk
-
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. -
Unfortunately those times became increasingly rare after his first season. He was good against USC twice but still almost fucked away one of those by fumbling a breakaway TD across the goal line for a touch back. I can't really remember a "big" game after his first season where he carried the team or was even really good.Tequilla said: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.Tequilla said: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. -
Lockner made Bo Pelini look like a genius. That was next to impossible, but 4/20 passing will do it.
-
-
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.Tequilla said:
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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? -
Fuck that give me Kessler. Thanks Lane
-
I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.RoadDawg55 said:
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.Tequilla said:
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
I asked for four paragraphs.Tequilla said:
I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.RoadDawg55 said:
So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.Tequilla said:
So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
Divided fan base
-
If we had all those secret visit recruits and 5 star runner ups on our roster we'd be undefeated.
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
