IMU wrote:
Yes...my four posts this morning truly have everyone on the defensive.
Well I will say that in one post you made fun of someone's possible inability to get a job and in another one you have called somebody an idiot.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Andrew Luck http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=96943 |
Page 2 of 6 |
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Hawg Ass wrote: No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job. Their** You also have poor writing skill. |
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job. Their** You also have poor writing skill. And I don't care. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Its ok, Hawger. Interwebs Tough Guy IMU is on the prowl today. Like a mad hornet, just let him bee. |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Yes...my four posts this morning truly have everyone on the defensive. |
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Yes...my four posts this morning truly have everyone on the defensive. Well I will say that in one post you made fun of someone's possible inability to get a job and in another one you have called somebody an idiot.
|
|
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Just to be clear, poor writing skills doesn't make you an 'idiot.' Your Packer fandom does that. |
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Just to be clear, poor writing skills doesn't make you an 'idiot.' Your Packer fandom does that. I feel good about my fandom. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so. I think it is great that someone of your limited skill in written communication can find gainful employment after two years of being out of the game. However, what the hell is an 'advanced metric guy.' All metrics and statistics get lumped into the same category...metrics and statistics. Maybe them seem advanced to you as you're not sure how they're calculated. IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
bigfan wrote: IMU wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so. I think it is great that someone of your limited skill in written communication can find gainful employment after two years of being out of the game. However, what the hell is an 'advanced metric guy.' All metrics and statistics get lumped into the same category...metrics and statistics. Maybe them seem advanced to you as you're not sure how they're calculated. IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? Look at BigFan sticking up for Frank! That was a little much, imo |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
bigfan wrote: IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? I'm not going to spend time "rating" shots fired at me and then weighting my response based on that. Frank attempted to discredit me based on his inability to either understand my stance when it comes to statistics or his undying desire to fire upon Cubs fans non-stop. I don't really care enough to decide which was the actual cause of his post. Frank's posting gets old and I'll respond with whatever first comes to mind. |
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: bigfan wrote: IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? I'm not going to spend time "rating" shots fired at me and then weighting my response based on that. Frank attempted to discredit me based on his inability to either understand my stance when it comes to statistics or his undying desire to fire upon Cubs fans non-stop. I don't really care enough to decide which was the actual cause of his post. Frank's posting gets old and I'll respond with whatever first comes to mind. OK Shoot and ask questions later. |
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
bigfan wrote: IMU wrote: bigfan wrote: IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? I'm not going to spend time "rating" shots fired at me and then weighting my response based on that. Frank attempted to discredit me based on his inability to either understand my stance when it comes to statistics or his undying desire to fire upon Cubs fans non-stop. I don't really care enough to decide which was the actual cause of his post. Frank's posting gets old and I'll respond with whatever first comes to mind. OK Shoot and ask questions later. He's IMU, don't you know. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: I was fair and only chose the years all 3 were in the league together. So that omits Stafford's 2 best years. The 2012-2015 statistics are meant to display that there was absolutely no foundation to 'lol' at Dalton and Stafford over Luck. Any view of Luck being a really good QB is still heavily based on 'potential'...not real world results. There is a foundation to lol @ stafford and dalton over Luck. They aren't as good as him. Nobody thinks they are better than him except you. Stats don't tell the whole story in football, and Stafford's stats are worse across the board anyway. The last 32 football games all of them have played, a fairly significant sample size, Luck is the better player. If you include postseason, Luck certainly looks better. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
bigfan wrote: IMU wrote: Frank Coztansa wrote: I think its great that IMU is an advanced metrics guy and then posts the traditional stats when its convenient for him to do so. I think it is great that someone of your limited skill in written communication can find gainful employment after two years of being out of the game. However, what the hell is an 'advanced metric guy.' All metrics and statistics get lumped into the same category...metrics and statistics. Maybe them seem advanced to you as you're not sure how they're calculated. IMU, you cut awfully deep. Someone takes a small shot at you and you come back with a deep cut. What do you think? He has that "it" that we loved in guys like MJ and Kobe. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: No matter, pretty shitty of someone to rip on a person and there possible potential to get a job. Their** You also have poor writing skill. 
|
|
| Author: | IMU [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Grammatically correct, yes. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
|
|
| Author: | newper [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
FavreFan wrote: IMU wrote: I was fair and only chose the years all 3 were in the league together. So that omits Stafford's 2 best years. The 2012-2015 statistics are meant to display that there was absolutely no foundation to 'lol' at Dalton and Stafford over Luck. Any view of Luck being a really good QB is still heavily based on 'potential'...not real world results. There is a foundation to lol @ stafford and dalton over Luck. They aren't as good as him. Nobody thinks they are better than him except you. Stats don't tell the whole story in football, and Stafford's stats are worse across the board anyway. The last 32 football games all of them have played, a fairly significant sample size, Luck is the better player. If you include postseason, Luck certainly looks better. I would like to pile on a little bit here and add that IMU defends his position by posting statistics that indicate he is wrong from a statistical point of view, then later claims that those statistics didn't fully explain his position. Regardless whether someone can spell words correctly, this shows a weakness in logic and reason. |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Except it doesn't, because career averages move Stafford ahead of Luck. I posted career averages first...which clearly show Stafford and Dalton are viable options. But since I also factored in cumulative stats, I felt 2012 through the present would be best. And since 2012...Luck has had better receivers while Stafford was saddled with an older, injured Calvin Johnson and Golden Tate. Dalton has had the weakest receivers and the best raw stats. So while you may dislike Stafford and Dalton...reason and logic point to them being just as good...if not better, if Luck does not improve. |
|
| Author: | Zizou [ Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Luck back with Harbaugh maybe? Pagano's days are numbered. The Colts will probably still win their suckass division but Irsay may shitcan Pagano anyway. I'd love for Jimmy to bail on the Maize and Blue after one year. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Still wants Stafford after that mess today, IMU? Luck has been playing with broken ribs since week 3. |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Yes. One game will make a difference? Maybe in your world. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
One game can make a difference. Cubs Pirates ring a bell? You can have Stafford, good luck with that. |
|
| Author: | Darkside [ Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Stafford can be decent with a good team around him and decent coaching but there none of that this year. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Correct. Luck van be great with some of that. His ceiling is far higher than Stafford' is. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
The Colts fired Pep Hamilton today. This is a very good thing for Luck and the Colts. |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Hamilton seemed to be doing well the past few seasons. Add NFL Offensive Coordinator to the list of things that don't matter. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Scorehead wrote: The Colts fired Pep Hamilton today. This is a very good thing for Luck and the Colts. The Colts problems go way deeper than changing OCs |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
Terry's Peeps wrote: Hamilton seemed to be doing well the past few seasons. Add NFL Offensive Coordinator to the list of things that don't matter. Depends on the hierarchy. |
|
| Author: | IMU [ Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Andrew Luck |
IMU wrote: Rodgers Newton Dalton Wilson Stafford In no order, but all ahead of Luck. That could easily change...but as of now that is whom I'd take. Derek Carr |
|
| Page 2 of 6 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|