Kress wrote:Aikman is a hack. Staubach rules the star.
Kress wrote:Staubach?
MJW wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:"My point proven"=Wrong
I love the logic. Good job walking away and admitting you were wrong here, sweetheart. Do it more often and you'll save a lot of embarrassment.
Yeah, you're talking about .011 percentage points as meaning something.
And I'm embarrassed.
That's what's happening here.
RedLeader wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
It's not a subjectively rhetorical question. It's very simple. You're unfortunately not blessed with the mental capacity to comprehend the question and as such you don't have an answer. As a result you resort to "Haha, you're just an idiot" instead of answering the simple question.
Dude, isnt it almost 2am where you're at.. lol
Your question is subjective because it's based on your personal opinions and points of view at the moment. And it's rhetorical because you're asking to try and make your point instead of really seeking an answer.
By definition, numb nuts, your question is subjectively rhetorical.
Now go to bed, dummy.
MJW wrote:Kress wrote:Staubach?
I think I liked Sanka better when he was legitimately stupid instead of doing this "Kelly Bundy in Season Nine" schtick.
Kress wrote:MJW wrote:
I think I liked Sanka better when he was legitimately stupid instead of doing this "Kelly Bundy in Season Nine" schtick.
It got ratings for a reason.
Bootz2004 wrote:MJW wrote:
Yeah, you're talking about .011 percentage points as meaning something.
And I'm embarrassed.
That's what's happening here.
No I'm talking about your claim that Cutler would win as much as he losses and possibly more. He hasn't done so for his career no matter how much you try to say otherwise. So your position is wrong. Accept it and move on.
BucJordan wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
No I'm talking about your claim that Cutler would win as much as he losses and possibly more. He hasn't done so for his career no matter how much you try to say otherwise. So your position is wrong. Accept it and move on.
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
Bootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500..
Bootz2004 wrote:Four Verticals wrote:
She says Cutler's good enough to win as many as he loses and you post a stat which shows Cutler's record as a starter as 3 games under .500 and use it to, apparently, prove you right?
I don't want Cutler but keep bootzin' away.
Below .500 is below .500. If you're going with the "well it's just 3 games" logic then at what point does it end? And you also conveniently leave out the part where she says "And possibly do better than that". So do yourself a favor and get off my ****. You ain't my type, kiddo.
BucJordan wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
No I'm talking about your claim that Cutler would win as much as he losses and possibly more. He hasn't done so for his career no matter how much you try to say otherwise. So your position is wrong. Accept it and move on.
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
MJW wrote:DreadNaught wrote:Yup, Glennon is going to be a check down monster that runs a boring offense. The Bears can and will win IF they can play defense. We all know John Fox has won alot of games in the NFL with mediocre QBs.
I don't think Glennon will be that close to Winston in yards or TDs.
But comp % and Ints? I absolutely think Glennon would be better. But that is 100% ok with me as a Bucs fan.
I think they expect a little more from Glennon than that. He can put the ball up 60 yards, which is something Delhomme did from time to time to Steve Smith. Cam Meredith and Kevin White aren't Steve Smith, but I expect them to use Glennon's arm enough to keep the defense honest.
And I don't think he's in competition with Jameis there any more than he was HERE. He's in competition with wins and losses. Enough wins, he's a success. Not enough, he's not. The Bears win 11 games next year with Glennon and Jordan Howard playing hot potato, nothing else really matters.
BucJordan wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
No I'm talking about your claim that Cutler would win as much as he losses and possibly more. He hasn't done so for his career no matter how much you try to say otherwise. So your position is wrong. Accept it and move on.
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
Go_Bucs! wrote:MJW wrote:
I think they expect a little more from Glennon than that. He can put the ball up 60 yards, which is something Delhomme did from time to time to Steve Smith. Cam Meredith and Kevin White aren't Steve Smith, but I expect them to use Glennon's arm enough to keep the defense honest.
And I don't think he's in competition with Jameis there any more than he was HERE. He's in competition with wins and losses. Enough wins, he's a success. Not enough, he's not. The Bears win 11 games next year with Glennon and Jordan Howard playing hot potato, nothing else really matters.
Bears predicted to win up to 11 games, Bucs predicted to win up to 11 games.
Bucs v bears next year since the NFC South plays the NFC North, can you imagine if the schedule calls for the bears on the road and Glennon gets a prime time shot to seek sweet revenge?
Swashy wrote:Go_Bucs! wrote:Bears predicted to win up to 11 games, Bucs predicted to win up to 11 games.
Bucs v bears next year since the NFC South plays the NFC North, can you imagine if the schedule calls for the bears on the road and Glennon gets a prime time shot to seek sweet revenge?
Bears to win 11 games next year? That team has barely won more 11 games over the past 3 years.
Bootz2004 wrote:BucJordan wrote:
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
So 69 is equal to or greater than 72. Got it
Thanks for the math lesson, kiddo. I love how you idiots defend the indefensible and embarrass yourselves and then try to make me seem like the dummy here. And again, let's remember what you're all saying: 69 is equal to or greater than 72. I love it. Please keep going.
MJW wrote:I'd like to point out that all I said was Cutler was capable of winning as many as he loses. It's ironic that for all this kvetching about a technical (misguided) statistical argument, this point still stands. He is very much capable of winning as many as he loses if Jameis misses a month or two.
Bootz2004 wrote:BucJordan wrote:
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
So 69 is equal to or greater than 72. Got it
Thanks for the math lesson, kiddo. I love how you idiots defend the indefensible and embarrass yourselves and then try to make me seem like the dummy here. And again, let's remember what you're all saying: 69 is equal to or greater than 72. I love it. Please keep going.
mightyleemoon wrote:Bootz2004 wrote:
So 69 is equal to or greater than 72. Got it
Thanks for the math lesson, kiddo. I love how you idiots defend the indefensible and embarrass yourselves and then try to make me seem like the dummy here. And again, let's remember what you're all saying: 69 is equal to or greater than 72. I love it. Please keep going.
Maybe the math lesson that would help bootz the most here would be a lesson on rounding.
Bootz2004 wrote:BucJordan wrote:
LOL. I found myself on the same side as Bootz on a topic yesterday. Glad to see this regression to the mean.
You realize that statistically, if we're looking at nothing but past performance, a backup QB with a .489 win percentage is more likely to win as many as he loses than any other result?
Lets say Jameis misses 6 games. Winning 3 (.500) is significantly more likely than 2 (.333) given a .489 past performance. And as should be obvious to anyone that has a basic grasp of probability, he could win more than 3, just as he certainly could win less.
Even missing an entire season, 0.500 is more likely than any other result based on his past performance. You're trolling too hard or being a complete moron.
I won't even bother comparing supporting casts to strengthen the case. I'm not even advocating for Cutler. I just understand logic and can't help but try to educate those who don't. Even when I know it's a lost cause.
So 69 is equal to or greater than 72. Got it
Thanks for the math lesson, kiddo. I love how you idiots defend the indefensible and embarrass yourselves and then try to make me seem like the dummy here. And again, let's remember what you're all saying: 69 is equal to or greater than 72. I love it. Please keep going.
Bootz2004 wrote:#69isGreaterThan72onBZ
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], mdb1958, Zarniwoop and 3 guests