18-38.......
-
no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.
It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.
This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.
no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.
It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.
This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.
Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.
It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.
This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.
Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.
Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.
I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.
-
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.
Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.
I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.
I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.
That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.
-
I think it is a stupid point since none of those teams were the team he's currently on. If he was 2 for his last 15 with the Browns team, I'd lead the charge that the backup needs to play. But he's 1-5 (although hard to pin him for the Jets loss imho) in the only games he's played that I give a shit about and has hardly been the reason for the losses. Denver is the only game he played poorly and it wasn't really all that bad. He's playing his ass off for the Browns and I still think he gives the team the best chance to win.
That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.
That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
-
medicineman- that's a silly attitude to take. The nfl is not college football- there is no reason that we cant be winning shortly. Because of the draft and the MASSIVE player turnover in this league(and the small talent diff from team to team to begin with), a losing team can become a winning team in short time.
medicineman- that's a silly attitude to take. The nfl is not college football- there is no reason that we cant be winning shortly. Because of the draft and the MASSIVE player turnover in this league(and the small talent diff from team to team to begin with), a losing team can become a winning team in short time.
His is not a silly attitude, it's a justified one. You've been saying since '99 that "there's no reason we can't be winning shortly"...to continue saying that going on 17 seasons is what's silly.
As far as McCown, had you known preseason that your QB through 6 games would throw for 8 TD's, 1,686 YDS., 96.1 RTG, and only 3 INT's, you would have takin it in a heartbeat.
McClown sucks because every team he has been on sucked. The browns O line were pushed around by the Rams front like a bunch of sissies. That's not McCowns fault.
-
That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
Tacosman is not exactly the most objective person when it comes to discussing the QB position.
McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.
-
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
Tacosman is not exactly the most objective person when it comes to discussing the QB position.
McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.
McCown has played his balls off and hasn't played too bad while doing it, and it's not like his backup is Aaron Rodgers or anything - it's a little person with a drinking problem.
is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?
-
is "little person" more PC or are we still ok calling him a midget and an elf?
I think little person is the correct term for PC purposes, I'm OK with midget but I didn't want to offend tacosman.
-
That's my exact point. What he did for other teams is naught. Granted, he's got a .166667 win percentage with the Browns, so it's not necessarily like he's crushing it here.
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
And anyone with an objective bone in his/her body can see he's hardly in the top 5 biggest problems this team currently has.
Id go so far to say he's probably the best thing we have going for us thus far.
I'd put him even higher than Barnidge or Benjamin, solely because of how little many expected of him.
-
-
Ok Taco's are not for everyone but Tacosman is for no one on Browns QB's. Josh Mc Cown is absolutely not the problem on this Team or Offense. Yes he holds the ball to long but explain his great numbers. It is what surrounds him in the huddle that is fragile than falls apart all together. Find him some talent than discipline & WR size support besides Benji & Barney, Turpin & Duke. Than quit your passion on haten Mc Cown after every gameday. Do us all a favor, work on fixing this defense. O'Neil loves Tacos Man!!
-
huh? 47%? Is this that new math? 18-37 or 18-38(two different sources have different numbers) is 32%. My niece in 5th grade would instantly know that an 18-37 record doesn't come to a 47% winning percentage. Did you actually divide 18 into 37 to get that? Bwahahahaha(hint: the denom should be the total number of games started, not total losses). That's over > 50 starts....so again, of qbs that have that volume of starts he is the ABSOLUTE WORST.
As for johnny, as I said I don't know now if he's good or not. Or will be. What I do know is that Josh Mccown is a proven L-O-S-E-R and teams that are going nowhere this season don't have any reason to keep starting 36 year old proven losers. If they don't want to put johnny out there, put some other young guy in there...the davis kid or whatever.
Does your 5th grade niece also understand the dynamics of a team sport? You obviously don't.huh? 47%? Is this that new math? 18-37 or 18-38(two different sources have different numbers) is 32%. My niece in 5th grade would instantly know that an 18-37 record doesn't come to a 47% winning percentage. Did you actually divide 18 into 37 to get that? Bwahahahaha(hint: the denom should be the total number of games started, not total losses). That's over > 50 starts....so again, of qbs that have that volume of starts he is the ABSOLUTE WORST.
As for johnny, as I said I don't know now if he's good or not. Or will be. What I do know is that Josh Mccown is a proven L-O-S-E-R and teams that are going nowhere this season don't have any reason to keep starting 36 year old proven losers. If they don't want to put johnny out there, put some other young guy in there...the davis kid or whatever.
-
I think you need to go back to school and learn how to calculate simple percentages. You don't divide 18/38.. you divide 18/(38+18) which gives you a career winning percentage of.... 32.1%.
And that is the guy you want leading the Browns. Mr 32%.
I like Cleveland Browns who were associated with 32:
Good one Gipper! I'm right there with you, Jim Brown was TITS.I like Cleveland Browns who were associated with 32:
-
I don't give a crap about manziel......I just want us to play someone other than a guy who loses more games than ANY OTHER QB in his era. Jesus.......
If we lose with manziel, then fine. We lose with manziel. At least we give our first round qb a decent look and can cut bait with our head held high. Much better to do that NOW and move on than kick around the can another year or so and end up doing it next year and pissing away part of that year too.
Josh Mccown is a L-O-S-E-R. His whole career spells that out. This year just adds to that. The Denver game spelled that out for me one final time. I didn't even need to see the st Louis game to know that.
if we start Josh Mccown he is going to keep losing games for us. Because that's what he does. that's all he has ever done.
-
sorry to bring actual hard numbers(18-38 as a starter across a 14 year career with several different teams) into the mix....but hey at least I could provide a little math refresher......Josh mccown has been with four or five different organizations and had countless different combinations of coaches, offensive coordinators, offensive lines, wideouts, etc.....the one constant thing in all that is he LOSES FOOTBALL GAMES.
sorry to bring actual hard numbers(18-38 as a starter across a 14 year career with several different teams) into the mix....but hey at least I could provide a little math refresher......Josh mccown has been with four or five different organizations and had countless different combinations of coaches, offensive coordinators, offensive lines, wideouts, etc.....the one constant thing in all that is he LOSES FOOTBALL GAMES.
To a point- I agree 100%. Except for a short stretch with the Bears (that Farmer was wishin' and a hopin' he could replicate) McCown has sucked with several different teams. In my book- that's not an accident.
excellent point...we always seem to have these little dweeb rb's or wr's who are weak...gabriel, hawkins, etc etc...i could go on throughout the yrs.. they get squashed like a waterbug. This is now a league where you need the strong tall wideouts ala jefferies, gronk, bryant, etc.
The wr issue is a problem. Running our smurfs on crossing routes over the middle is getting them killed. (Resulted in a couple fumbles against the Rams IIRC). Blame Josh- or blame the OC- you don't run 170 pound wrs on routes that's going to get them destroyed by a 240 pound linebacker. The good qbs sense what the defense will do- and Josh doesn't. I've also posted in many threads- McCown's internal clock is about a second slow- all the great ones- Rodgers, Manning Brady- know when it's time to duck- or throw the ball away.
-
So admit it than Tacosman. You are & always will be a JM Fanboy & that is fine. But what do you see in JM that our coaches have not seen in 2 years on the field? Oh wait. We will have 3 trends on this when he goes on the exemption list. see you then.. Josh gives this team the best chance to win on game day. JM is getting better on the field when he can stay on it. That's again on him.. Maybe JM gets his shot against a tougher Zona defense this week so we can compare to that god awful Rams D that beat Josh all day. Either way fit the story as you may.
-
no Johnny is someone who has made a few career starts....we don't know what johnny's career winning percentage will turn out to be with a sufficient number of starts. Because they haven't happened yet. But when you have 56 career starts....that's different.
It's the difference between saying a 13-1 nfl team is 'really good' vs a 1-0 team. The 13-1 nfl team we know is really good that year. The 1-0 team? Not enough information yet.
This is also a very elementary math concept that my 5th grade niece would get.....of course if simple fractions and percentages proved too much, perhaps that concept is a challenge as well.
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
If you want to get technical with math and stats, I can get technical. I don't think you'll like where the conversation ends up.
Don't belittle people because they made a simple computational error when your point is already fucking stupid.
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Taco...
What TC is saying is that winning percentage is not the best means for evaluating a QB...
You're welcome in advance,
Tour
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Except that you're considering a multivariate comparison, which rarely ever determines anything with any sort of consistency. To get a truer comparison, you have to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Taco...
What TC is saying is that winning percentage is not the best means for evaluating a QB...
You're welcome in advance,
Tour
Taco...
What TC is saying is that winning percentage is not the best means for evaluating a QB...
You're welcome in advance,
Tour
*IF* all those losses have come about with multiple different organizations, then thats a bit different though.....he's been a L-O-S-E-R everywhere. Wherever he goes he loses games. That's a bit more telling.
But yeah, I'd agree that W-L alone arent a good way to evaluate a qb(although with a record like mccowns it does mean something I think)
What exactly in any evaluation does mccown do well at? His numbers? If you think his numbers are good, you are looking at the wrong numbers. Take sunday for example....yeah his qb rating is ok, but this isnt 1992. Qb rating is an incredibly flawed and often meaningless stat. It doesnt take into account his two lost fumbles. It doesn't take into account(proportionally) his piss poor 3rd down play. It doesn't take into account his refusal to take a shot into the damn end zone the whole game, which resulted in us not scoring(or even coming close) any touchdowns. His qb rating from sunday says he was ok, but any more sophisticated analysis would say he sucked.
Same thing in the denver game.....
-
So admit it than Tacosman. You are & always will be a JM Fanboy & that is fine. But what do you see in JM that our coaches have not seen in 2 years on the field? Oh wait. We will have 3 trends on this when he goes on the exemption list. see you then.. Josh gives this team the best chance to win on game day. JM is getting better on the field when he can stay on it. That's again on him.. Maybe JM gets his shot against a tougher Zona defense this week so we can compare to that god awful Rams D that beat Josh all day. Either way fit the story as you may.
So admit it than Tacosman. You are & always will be a JM Fanboy & that is fine. But what do you see in JM that our coaches have not seen in 2 years on the field? Oh wait. We will have 3 trends on this when he goes on the exemption list. see you then.. Josh gives this team the best chance to win on game day. JM is getting better on the field when he can stay on it. That's again on him.. Maybe JM gets his shot against a tougher Zona defense this week so we can compare to that god awful Rams D that beat Josh all day. Either way fit the story as you may.
i dont know if johnny could be good or not. And Im not a johnny fanboy. I'm a "don't run a 36 yo journeyman backup qb with an 18-38 career record when the season is lost already" fanboy.
As for the value of our coaches evals, I dont know how much they are worth. In case you havent noticed, our coaches sorta suck and are likely not long for their jobs. So excuse me if I am less than impressed with their eval. My eval is that I DONT KNOW what johnny can do. If he sucks for 5 starts, I wont be wrong....since I never said I thought he would be good. I DONT KNOW. And not knowing(and lets be honest our coaches dont really know either....if they think they know thats even more absurd and telling) with this team is a better option than one of the Mccown brothers.....(the less famous one...the brother with new orleans at least a few people know because of the commercial he is in)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login