Mike Glennon

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

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby sanka » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:14 am

Mods please delete this useless thread about a useless player....You have a franchise QB and you guys are still yapping about this clown.
User avatar
sanka
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:44 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:20 am

Staubach?
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3104
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:38 am

Kress wrote:Aikman is a hack. Staubach rules the star.


Danny White fan, myself. Underrated.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6497
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:40 am

Kress wrote:Staubach?


I think I liked Sanka better when he was legitimately stupid instead of doing this "Kelly Bundy in Season Nine" schtick.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6497
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:08 am

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.


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.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 17691
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:10 am

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.


Just as I stated and you've proven, you're too dumb to understand a simple question.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 17691
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:47 am

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.



It got ratings for a reason.
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3104
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Buc2 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:35 am

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.

Millennials?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7395
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 713 times
Been thanked: 247 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Naismith » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:44 am

Cutler's winning percentage is higher than Jameis'.

Until 19-0 in 2017.
User avatar
Naismith
 
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby BucJordan » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:54 pm

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.


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.
BucJordan
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:16 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby RedLeader » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:51 pm

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.




/bootzing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
< syntax error 404: virus found /restart program>
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:53 pm

BucJ, you may have missed this earlier... :P

Bootz2004 wrote:Below .500 is below .500..
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:06 pm

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.


....and the bootzin' has continued I see.

You really are a clown. I did like the draft you posted but, overall, your clueless about a lot of things and willing to go to incredible lengths to prove it.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:10 pm

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.


Thanks for putting the debate to rest in a format even a simpleton could grasp. Unfortunately bootz hasn't gotten to that point yet. He's dug in and he's not budging.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Go_Bucs! » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:08 pm

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.

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?
Go_Bucs!
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:14 pm

I don't know if revenge is the right word. Glennon left on good terms and we offered him 7-8m to stay. He went to chase his opportunity to start. Jameis is the dude here and everyone knows that.

I hope the Bears visit to RayJay is a meaningful Dec. game for both teams. I like our chances against big bird.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:27 pm

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.


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.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 17691
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Swashy » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:56 pm

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?


Bears to win 11 games next year? That team has barely won more 11 games over the past 3 years.
Swashy
 
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Cheb » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:06 pm

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.


#theGlennoneffect
Image
Cheb
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:00 pm
Location: West Coast
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:27 am

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. That is, most likely, good enough to keep our season alive. I do not believe there's another QB on the market capable of doing this. Which is to say, yet again, absolutely nobody has offered me a superior Plan B.

It's Cutler...maybe it's Kaepernick...or it's most likely, "Jameis to miss 4-6 weeks, Buccaneers to prepare for the 2018 draft" IMHO.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6497
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby RedLeader » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:49 am

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.


Derp. Derp. Derp.


Good lord, you're st-st-stupid.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1665
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:59 pm

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.


No. No. No. That is not possible.

Based on his career winning pct he would only win 7.83 out of 16 games if he played a full season rather than as many as 8. That's right. bootz knows that a player who's only capable of winning 7.83 games instead of 8 out of 16 is not capable of winning as many as he loses.

The scary thing is that he still thinks he's correct.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:11 am

Well if you put it that way....
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3104
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:23 am

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.


Maybe the math lesson that would help bootz the most here would be a lesson on rounding.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:31 am

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.


Why round? It's really simple, folks - based on his wins on Denver and Chicago, when Jay Cutler plays 1,000 games for us, he'll have lost 11 more of those 1000 games than he'll have won.

If you guys don't want to prepare for our backup having to start 1,000 games for us, you may as well start preparing for the 2018 draft.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 6497
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:23 am

Let's trade down, get some extra picks, and then still get Bootz as our developmental backup mathematician in round 5.
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3104
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:31 am

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.


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:46 am

New week, same stupidity from Buc Zones finest. Keep trying guys.

#69isGreaterThan72onBZ
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 17691
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 388 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:59 am

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?
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:22 am

c'mon bootz I'm rootin for you man, you can get this one
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 104 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bootz2004, Captainjimbo, Cheb, ComingThisFall, Deja Entendu, Google [Bot], Kress, Nano, NYBF, reagan SMASH, real bucs fan, Sammich, Truebuc, uscbucsfan, Yahoo [Bot], Zarniwoop and 26 guests