Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Tequilla Quick Thought
Comments
-
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
