Mike Glennon

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

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby theBKwhopper » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:11 pm

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.

Man, you have issues.
User avatar
theBKwhopper
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:39 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Swashy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:17 pm

Can we somehow preserve this thread for all time? This is too precious to let go of.
Swashy
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:18 pm

theBKwhopper 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.

Man, you have issues.


Just 1. I keep responding to you idiots. Conventional wisdom tells me I should just let you dumbasses believe that what you say is correct and keep it moving. And I would've. But 3 days later someone had to bring up the stupidity started by MJW yet again. So I couldn't help myself. It's a fundamental flaw. I admit that. Trying to help you guys realize how dumb you sound.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
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 12:21 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
theBKwhopper wrote:Man, you have issues.


Just 1. I keep responding to you idiots. Conventional wisdom tells me I should just let you dumbasses believe that what you say is correct and keep it moving. And I would've. But 3 days later someone had to bring up the stupidity started by MJW yet again. So I couldn't help myself. It's a fundamental flaw. I admit that. Trying to help you guys realize how dumb you sound.


Image
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 7572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 314 times
Been thanked: 316 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Swashy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:22 pm

I also propose that .011% be called the Bootz level of statistical negligence. He's technically right about what he's saying. But at the level of saying its incorrect to say it was a clear sunny day but there was a single, small cloud in the sky.

I swear I'd give everything I have to watch him run a 13 hour filibuster in congress
Swashy
 
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:24 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
theBKwhopper wrote:Man, you have issues.


Just 1. I keep responding to you idiots. Conventional wisdom tells me I should just let you dumbasses believe that what you say is correct and keep it moving. And I would've. But 3 days later someone had to bring up the stupidity started by MJW yet again. So I couldn't help myself. It's a fundamental flaw. I admit that. Trying to help you guys realize how dumb you sound.

Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Buc2 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:27 pm

I think Bootz's is just trolling because he can't possibly be this stupid. Right?
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby BucJordan » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:39 pm

This time last year, Jay Cutler was a QB that could win as many games as he lost. 68-68 bitches.

I bet no one told him how important that next game was. It would forever define his ability to perform as a backup.

Still, he makes a lot of sense for us. Hell, our STARTER only has a winning percentage of 0.46875. Maybe that guy could back up Cutler?
BucJordan
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:16 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:47 pm

Here's a better one. Say you were a salesman. And your job gave you 130 items and they told you that you needed to sell at minimum 50% of the item(65 items) or you'll be fired. However you only sold 63 of them....Are you going to tell them it's "basically 50%?

No one has come up with any concrete, definitive information showing that I'm wrong. It's because you can't. You simply have chosen to take a side that's indefensible and are using "strength in numbers" as validation for your belief that you're right. You arent. You're all absolutely wrong here and you have no basis to stand on except each other. "Yea, we're cool and we're right and Bootz is wrong because we have more people on our side than he does. Go us!". We have 10 or so individuals trying to make a case that 69 is just as much as 72 OR POSSIBLY BETTER.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
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 12:52 pm

We're at the terrible analogy portion of the trolling.
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 Buc2 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:57 pm

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:57 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:Here's a better one. Say you were a salesman. And your job gave you 130 items and they told you that you needed to sell at minimum 50% of the item(65 items) or you'll be fired. However you only sold 63 of them....Are you going to tell them it's "basically 50%?

No one has come up with any concrete, definitive information showing that I'm wrong. It's because you can't. You simply have chosen to take a side that's indefensible and are using "strength in numbers" as validation for your belief that you're right. You arent. You're all absolutely wrong here and you have no basis to stand on except each other. "Yea, we're cool and we're right and Bootz is wrong because we have more people on our side than he does. Go us!". We have 10 or so individuals trying to make a case that 69 is just as much as 72 OR POSSIBLY BETTER.


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 891
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 1:02 pm

Naismith wrote:We're at the terrible analogy portion of the trolling.


So you're too afraid to answer I see. Should've wasted your time.

Edit- 3 cowards now. Anyone else?
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 15662
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 361 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby theBKwhopper » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:08 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
theBKwhopper wrote:Man, you have issues.


Just 1. I keep responding to you idiots. Conventional wisdom tells me I should just let you dumbasses believe that what you say is correct and keep it moving. And I would've. But 3 days later someone had to bring up the stupidity started by MJW yet again. So I couldn't help myself. It's a fundamental flaw. I admit that. Trying to help you guys realize how dumb you sound.

To be fair, I have no horse in this race. I don't care about Jay Cutler. I've just been watching you get railed hard and you don't let up. It's almost like you enjoy it.
User avatar
theBKwhopper
 
Posts: 2943
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 3:39 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby mightyleemoon » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:10 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:Here's a better one. Say you were a salesman. And your job gave you 130 items and they told you that you needed to sell at minimum 50% of the item(65 items) or you'll be fired. However you only sold 63 of them....Are you going to tell them it's "basically 50%?


See, you're lost. The debate isn't that .489 is basically .500. It's about what can be predicted from a 48.9 percent success rate.

To use your analogy and stick with the small sample size of the original argument (The sample size is extremely important to this conversation).

Say you are the manager of a sales team and you were forecasting how your sales team would do. You have one salesman who has a career of selling 48.9 percent of the items he is given. You give him 4 items to sell that day. How many items would you forecast him to sell that day?
Last edited by mightyleemoon on Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 BucJordan » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:10 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:Here's a better one. Say you were a salesman. And your job gave you 130 items and they told you that you needed to sell at minimum 50% of the item(65 items) or you'll be fired. However you only sold 63 of them....Are you going to tell them it's "basically 50%?


No, I'd get fired because I failed as a front-line salesman. Some new guy would replace me who doesn't have much experience. My boss saw potential in him, despite the fact that he's only sold 5 out of 18 of his items for another company. Oh well.

Then I'd look for a job somewhere else. Maybe in a place that already has a front line salesman they believe in. And in the interview I'd say "Behind the strength of your product and this supporting cast, I can be of value to you. I know you don't want me on the front lines, but my track record shows I'm the type of guy that can substitute in a pinch and sell as many as I don't. Hell, maybe more if I had my Wheaties that morning!"
BucJordan
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:16 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby NYBF » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:09 pm

Buc2 wrote:I think Bootz's is just trolling because he can't possibly be this stupid. Right?


:?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 262 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Naismith » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:59 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
Naismith wrote:We're at the terrible analogy portion of the trolling.


So you're too afraid to answer I see. Should've wasted your time.

Edit- 3 cowards now. Anyone else?


I assume you're trolling, but it's really scary if you genuinely don't get why your analogy is so bad or if you can't understand the simple math that's being discussed. Your questions have been answered repeatedly, you just aren't smart enough to understand where or you're trolling as you often do.
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 Nano » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:29 pm

Just think, in 1 month...Bootz may be forced to try this argument with mdb
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:42 pm

Naismith wrote:
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.


I'm with you. I've just been posting about the board boob's use of stats.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Four Verticals » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:43 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
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".


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.


Keep bootzin'.
Four Verticals
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby PrimeMinister » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:10 am

Some beatings are tough to watch. This one isn't.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Selmon Rules » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:26 am

I've been reading this with interest the past few days (its Spring Break and I have time) and its like I never left the classroom... I teach kids with emotional and behavioral disorders and arguments pop up all of the time and someone has to lose. I usually tell them that the first person to resort to using the word "technically" has lost the argument.

While you haven't actually used the word itself, you have resorted to arguing semantics and technicalities is this thread and have decided to defend this particular pile of dung. Nobody is arguing that .489 is better than .500 but we are saying that you're just being a contrarian and would have argued the other side of this if MJW had claimed he could not possibly with half of his games if needed for a short period of time....

I get it, you apparently suffer from ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) and can't be satisfied with agreeing about anything and would likely argue about the particular shade of blue the sky happens to be today given the opportunity
Image
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:52 am

This might rival the SuperDave meltdown of '14.
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:54 am

Kress wrote:This might rival the SuperDave meltdown of '14.



^
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 1537
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Kress » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:55 am

****. Do I need to put something in escrow?
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby Buc2 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:10 am

This has become my favorite offseason thread.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby PrimeMinister » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:43 pm

ODD explains everything.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 4970
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 137 times

Re: Mike Glennon

Postby MJW » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:36 pm

Selmon Rules wrote:I've been reading this with interest the past few days (its Spring Break and I have time) and its like I never left the classroom... I teach kids with emotional and behavioral disorders and arguments pop up all of the time and someone has to lose. I usually tell them that the first person to resort to using the word "technically" has lost the argument.

While you haven't actually used the word itself, you have resorted to arguing semantics and technicalities is this thread and have decided to defend this particular pile of dung. Nobody is arguing that .489 is better than .500 but we are saying that you're just being a contrarian and would have argued the other side of this if MJW had claimed he could not possibly with half of his games if needed for a short period of time....

I get it, you apparently suffer from ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) and can't be satisfied with agreeing about anything and would likely argue about the particular shade of blue the sky happens to be today given the opportunity


I absolutely love this philosophy - if you use the word "technically" in your argument, or resort to arguing with technicality in mind, you've lost the argument.

Also, I'd like to remind the field of this point - I didn't say he was a mortal lock to win as many as he loses. If I'd said that, Bootz's argument would have at least been reasonable. But I never did. I said he was capable of doing so over a relatively short period of time. As such, not only was Bootz's argument totally misguided, it was statistically inert as well, as many have pointed out throughout this thread.

But instead of just saying, "I'm just making a point" or "I'm just busting chops," or, "Here's why I disagree Cutler would be a good backup," or even, "YOU'RE RIGHT, I DIDN'T THINK OF IT THAT WAY AT FIRST," Bootz can't help but Bootz, and double down on his indefensible point, and quadruple down, until he's getting ripped apart and pretending he possesses a rare vision that the commoners aren't up to understanding.

Let me state it again, clearly:

"I believe Jay Cutler would be a good backup for our team because he's capable of winning as many as he loses if Winston suffers a moderate injury, and he's the only backup on the market (besides maybe CK) I'd say that about."

Anybody want to mount a reasonable argument to that?
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 LoRdNlKoN » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:12 am

MJW wrote:
Selmon Rules wrote:I've been reading this with interest the past few days (its Spring Break and I have time) and its like I never left the classroom... I teach kids with emotional and behavioral disorders and arguments pop up all of the time and someone has to lose. I usually tell them that the first person to resort to using the word "technically" has lost the argument.

While you haven't actually used the word itself, you have resorted to arguing semantics and technicalities is this thread and have decided to defend this particular pile of dung. Nobody is arguing that .489 is better than .500 but we are saying that you're just being a contrarian and would have argued the other side of this if MJW had claimed he could not possibly with half of his games if needed for a short period of time....

I get it, you apparently suffer from ODD (Oppositional Defiance Disorder) and can't be satisfied with agreeing about anything and would likely argue about the particular shade of blue the sky happens to be today given the opportunity


I absolutely love this philosophy - if you use the word "technically" in your argument, or resort to arguing with technicality in mind, you've lost the argument.

Also, I'd like to remind the field of this point - I didn't say he was a mortal lock to win as many as he loses. If I'd said that, Bootz's argument would have at least been reasonable. But I never did. I said he was capable of doing so over a relatively short period of time. As such, not only was Bootz's argument totally misguided, it was statistically inert as well, as many have pointed out throughout this thread.

But instead of just saying, "I'm just making a point" or "I'm just busting chops," or, "Here's why I disagree Cutler would be a good backup," or even, "YOU'RE RIGHT, I DIDN'T THINK OF IT THAT WAY AT FIRST," Bootz can't help but Bootz, and double down on his indefensible point, and quadruple down, until he's getting ripped apart and pretending he possesses a rare vision that the commoners aren't up to understanding.

Let me state it again, clearly:

"I believe Jay Cutler would be a good backup for our team because he's capable of winning as many as he loses if Winston suffers a moderate injury, and he's the only backup on the market (besides maybe CK) I'd say that about."

Anybody want to mount a reasonable argument to that?



Other than Cutler's probably going to want more money than I'd want to pay for a back up QB, no sounds pretty reasonable. I'd much rather have Cutler than Kaep.
User avatar
LoRdNlKoN
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Mex-Buc, Naismith and 3 guests