Mike Glennon

Team Discussions regarding games, players, coaches, or anything else related to Buccaneer Football.
post

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:31 am

We all know the answer...it always has been .... and always will be




42
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:35 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:#69isGreaterThan72onBZ


Except, that's not what anyone is saying.

Maybe smaller numbers will help.

Say a QB wins 48 percent of the time (I'm rounding down for you) and he plays 4 games. How many games would you say that QB is more likely to win? 1 or 2?

Or, to put another way...

Is 48 closer to 50 or closer to 25?


You're right. My apologies.

#69=72onBz
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Rocker » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:38 am

Yall done fucked up and put Bootz in 2012 mode.

#elevenhundredthsofapercentagepoint
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 161 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:45 am

Rocker wrote:Yall done fucked up and put Bootz in 2012 mode.

#elevenhundredthsofapercentagepoint


Real question: At point does it end
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:50 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
#69=72onBz


YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Naismith » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:51 am

When someone refuses to acknowledge a simple math concept, at what point do you just assume they'll never get it or are intentionally not getting it?
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:54 am

It's sad when the clown thinks shooting the seltzer extra hard will make people respect him.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:58 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
Except, that's not what anyone is saying.

Maybe smaller numbers will help.

Say a QB wins 48 percent of the time (I'm rounding down for you) and he plays 4 games. How many games would you say that QB is more likely to win? 1 or 2?

Or, to put another way...

Is 48 closer to 50 or closer to 25?


You're right. My apologies.

#69=72onBz


I didn't even make a statement. I asked a question. And you avoided answering it because you realize you're in a hole so you're trying to save face by putting your troll hat back on.

Really, it shouldn't be too hard to just say "Ah, never mind. I get it. Yea, he's more likely to come out with an even record with a smaller sample size. Fair enough."

But, I guess your pride is in the way or something.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:05 am

lmfao this thread
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:08 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
#69=72onBz


YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....


Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Naismith » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:24 am

Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:27 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....


Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?


Nobody knows you babbling boob. All anyone knows is that the only person on the board or possibly anywhere who wouldn't agree that a guy who's winning pct. was .489 is capable of winning as much as losing is you. Those are the numbers we're working with and you stupidly used to prove your idiotic point.

However keep bootzin' along and figure for yourself that you've won this argument even though the rest of the world is laughing at you.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:27 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
YOU are the only person saying that!!! Unless you can provide who else other that YOU has said such nonsense just admit it's a straw man you've created and now arguing against.

You're like watching a dog chases his tail with this....


Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?


Use the whole quote...

MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses


She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:31 am

Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.


Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:33 am

MJW wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
What's a competent backup?


If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses, and possibly do better than that. The season won't be over if he has to play for a month or two. I think that's a worthwhile investment personally. I don't want the entire season to go down the crapper if Jameis gets even a moderate injury. But again, that's me. You're just going to turn injuries off, apparently.


Bootz, you're literate. Part of being literate is understanding context. Context is absolute integral to reading comprehension. All bullshit aside, answer for me, in the context of the discussion of "how well a backup QB would perform in relief duty", how many weeks do you interpret the bolded phrase is supposed to mean?

I.e., what does "multiple weeks" mean for you?

3?

4?

8?

At what point, given all you understand about person-to-person communication, which let's be honest, you spend your free time communicating to others on a internet message board, so I'd at least say you're at least better than a "cursory understanding" - at what point would you consider the cutoff for "multiple"?

If she meant more than 8 games, which represents half of a football season, don't you think she would then transition to a different set of words, other than "multiple games" to elicit a markedly different scenario than just "multiple games"; wouldn't you think one would say perhaps, "miss half a season or more", rather than "multiple games"?

I think its reasonable to assume that the cutoff for "multiple games" is 8. But just because you're being a ****, we're going to go really far, and say by multiple games, she meant "an entire ****ing season"

So we take 16 and multiply it by Jay Cutler's career winning percentage, .489

This gives us 7.824 games won, by Jay Culter, in an average, imagined scenario. And since football wins and losses aren't divided into hundreths or thousanths of points, they are given in whole numbers, we must round to the nearest approximate whole number. There's no choice in this.

You passed 3rd grade math, right? What's the nearest whole number to 7.824?

You're not seriously about to say 7 are you? good

how many is 8 in relation to 8? that's right, "as many"
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:34 am

mightyleemoon wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
Anytime you argue that a guy with a 69-72 record "wins as much as he loses" that's exactly what you're saying. MJW started it, the BZ clown carousel followed because that's what you guys do.

And if your argument is "well it's close" then I'll ask AGAIN. At what point does it end? 68-73? 67-74? What's the cutoff? Who's not too much of a coward to answer?


Use the whole quote...

MJW wrote:If Cutler had to play for multiple weeks, he's good enough to win as many as he loses


She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.


You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:37 am

Four Verticals wrote:
Naismith wrote:Depends on the number of games you're expecting your backup to play. If you're talking about four starts, 47-94 is the record at which point he is equally likely to win two as he is to win one. Worse than that, he is more likely to win one or less. Better than that, he's more likely to win two or more.

This is all assuming that you can determine a player's true value towards wins and losses based on a winning percentage, which, of course, isn't possible.


Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".


72-69 ISNT winning more than you lose but 69-72 possibly is. And you people call ME the idiot?? Lmao! This is classic. You cannot make this stuff up.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:39 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
Use the whole quote...



She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.


You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.


"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:40 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.


"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now


Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:40 am

beardmcdoug wrote:lmfao this thread
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:46 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
"and possibly do better than that" is a subjective statement based on MJW's positive assessment of the current Buc's roster in relation to past Bears/Broncos rosters that Cutler has previously played on... has nothing to do with the objective arithmetic facts you've been in denial of for 2 pages now


Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".


She wrote the freakin word "possibly" lmao cmon dude
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:50 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
Leave it to you to deem a statement someone else makes as "subjective".


She wrote the freakin word "possibly" lmao cmon dude


69-72 is possibly winning more than you lose. We've already established that you and the carousel believe this position
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15658
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:54 am

As a statistician this conversation is hilarious

If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a

6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4

AAE



To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.


For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Naismith » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:56 am

Four Verticals wrote:Except for the fact that any team which was going to sign him and was looking at his w/l record as a determinant would simply say he's capable of winning as many as he loses without going the Pythagoras route and worring about a game and a half in one direction. Does anyone in their right mind think that if Cutler were 72-69 that the opinion would be he wins more than he loses? In either situation the opinion amongst the thinking is going to be "he's a .500 guy".


I agree with you that in either scenario, people would refer to him as a guy that wins half the time he's on the field. I don't believe that any (or at least, most) teams would determine whether they want to sign a QB based on his win-loss record, so I'm not sure that really matters too much to them.

My only point was that Jay Cutler isn't a 69-72 QB. He's a 69-72 QB in the situations he's been in. Had he played his entire career on the Bears teams of the last three years, he'd have a worse record. Had he played his entire career on the Bears teams from 2010-2012, he'd have a much better record. His record is an easy way to define him but it's also a very superficial way because he wasn't responsible for every loss, nor every win. He was part of teams, some good, some bad, but that doesn't mean he's only capable of (or still capable of) winning 50% of his games going forward.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:57 am

Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious

If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a

6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4

AAE



To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.


For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games


So, based on his career W/L, which Bootz is obsessed with, Cutler over four games would have a 67.0% chance of winning 2+ games over a 4 game stretch if he had to start for us.

That strikes me like a good backup QB, honestly.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 139 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:04 am

Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious

If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a

6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4

AAE



To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.


For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games


Lmfao this is what I'm looking for. Nice
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:09 am

Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious

If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a

6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4

AAE



To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.


For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games


Bootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7554
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:12 am

Bootz2004 wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
Use the whole quote...



She is clearly saying that his winning percentage in a small sample size should be good enough to get you to .500. The math and basic logic back her up. But, you're hanging your argument on some pedantic nonsense because you have some weird e-boner for MJW that you need to have scratched.

You've lost this round, bootz. Better luck next time.


You left out "and possibly do better than that". Despite the fact that he hasn't won as much as he's lost. Thankfully someone has already states "no one knows" and seeing as no one here can think for themselves except me, that should speak for everyone that no one knows where it ends. So again, 69-72="Winning as much as you lose and possibly better" on Buczone.com

Lost? Because you say so and you have backers? Not even close.


"And possibly do better" does not mean "and will do better". It's just tossing out the possibility. And, when you're just tossing out the "possibility" then you are also acknowledging the chance that things could also possibly go worse.

I mean, we could bootz you and say "Possible=Certainty" on Bootzone.com! That's exactly what you're doing here and why everyone is giving you some well earned ****.

And, no, you've lost because you don't have probability on your side. You can keep repeating the fact that 69 is less than 72...because, you're right. 69 is totally less than 72. But, until you realize that has absolutely nothing to do with probability...then you're lost and you've lost.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby acmillis » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:45 am

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:As a statistician this conversation is hilarious

If a .489 QB plays 4 games there is a

6.9% chance he wins 0 games
26.1% chance he wins 1 game
37.4% chance he wins 2 games
23.9 % chance he wins 3 games
5.7% chance he wins all 4

AAE



To think that is significantly different from a .500 QB is stupid...bottom line.


For the .500 QB to be expected to win a single game more then the .489 QB, the sample size needs to be approximately 98 games


Bootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500.


My guess is that Bootz either doesn't show in this thread again...or stick to the .480<.500 argument.
acmillis
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:05 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby VauntedTampa2 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:49 am

Which is funny, considering only casuals talk about back-up QBs...
VauntedTampa2
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 8:52 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 14 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acmillis, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Bootz2004, EcuadorBuc, NYBF and 6 guests