From an 'At the Game' Perspective
-
Masters said:
The only thing Favre and Anderson have in common is that they both have cannon arms. The comparison starts and end there. For all of Brett's "wildness", his lowest career comp% for a season is 56, and that just happened a couple of years ago.Thanks for reiterating what I said even though I somehow think you think I am comparing the two.
Thanks for reiterating what I said even though I somehow think you think I am comparing the two.
Didn't. But don't think they even belong in the same discussion of gunslinger. Let alone the notion that a gunslinger is going to have a lower comp%, seeing as how Favre has not for his career.
This was also the second place I saw Favre and DA in the same converstaion. So it's where I decided to post it. If I was talking directly to you thinking you were comparing the two, I'd have quoted you.
-
No problems Masters...it looked like you were replying to me and I think most would have read it that way as well, so don't be coy.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Bottom line is I saw improvement in the team...and after what we have seen the previous 3 weeks, that is all I expect at this point.
-
No problems Masters...it looked like you were replying to me and I think most would have read it that way as well, so don't be coy.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Bottom line is I saw improvement in the team...and after what we have seen the previous 3 weeks, that is all I expect at this point.
No problems Masters...it looked like you were replying to me and I think most would have read it that way as well, so don't be coy.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Well sorry it looked like that to you, but isn't the case and I am not being coy.
Figured you weren't born last night. But a wasted cliche` in this scenario. Unless you choose to make what wasn't into what you thought it was.
-
Stan's in love with DA.
I was at the game too.
DA missed some passes and only if the QB was your brother would you say he was money all day. He wasn't.
I hate posting this because the general review I would give DA yesterday was very positive. He threw a ton of really great passes. However, the INT was his fault. You don't make a mistake with the football like that in the red zone. DA did. One other pass in particular stood out: a missed ball to Furrey on a crossing pattern (either late 4th or in OT, can't remember) that was well behind him. No pressure, just a miss. The problem is that if he'd hit Furrey in stride it would have gone for six. The safety helping blew his angle and Furrey had no one in front of him.
Again, overall a nice display of QB'ing. But Stan's coming off as a DA homer which is comical considering how much he hates QB's and even more how much he hates BQ homers.
-
@shepwrite said:
Anderson was better than Quinn has been.I agree.
-
So DA Looked good in person.. I saw a chick who looked good in person, but the fact is she was still a disease infested hooker. ( I did not find out the hard way haha that's not me).. Yeah DA may look good..but your always in for that letdown the next day when realize you lost the game again.. I am not sure how 54% completion can look good...but I don't know if you drink or not.
-
No problems Masters...it looked like you were replying to me and I think most would have read it that way as well, so don't be coy.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Well sorry it looked like that to you, but isn't the case and I am not being coy.
Figured you weren't born last night. But a wasted cliche` in this scenario. Unless you choose to make what wasn't into what you thought it was.
Masters said:
Well sorry it looked like that to you, but isn't the case and I am not being coy.Figured you weren't born last night. But a wasted cliche` in this scenario. Unless you choose to make what wasn't into what you thought it was.
Good enough
-
What's the point here?
Is it that Anderson is -- right now, today -- better than Quinn? Of course he is. He's played almost SIX TIMES more games than Quinn. He damn well better be better than Quinn.
The real issue is that in going on 34 starts, Anderson IS THE EXACT SAME GUY.
If you like that guy, great. Glad he looked good to you on Sunday.
What was the end result again?
-
What's the point here?
Is it that Anderson is -- right now, today -- better than Quinn? Of course he is. He's played almost SIX TIMES more games than Quinn. He damn well better be better than Quinn.
The real issue is that in going on 34 starts, Anderson IS THE EXACT SAME GUY.
If you like that guy, great. Glad he looked good to you on Sunday.
What was the end result again?
What's the point here?
Is it that Anderson is -- right now, today -- better than Quinn? Of course he is. He's played almost SIX TIMES more games than Quinn. He damn well better be better than Quinn.
The real issue is that in going on 30 starts, Anderson IS THE EXACT SAME GUY.
If you like that guy, great. Glad he looked good to you on Sunday.
What was the end result again?
A loss no doubt....is there a point??
-
Um...yes.
That we lost, despite this "good looking" QB.
Who did what we knew he'd do.
Which is.
Play like an average QB.
And.
Lose.
-
Um...yes.
That we lost, despite this "good looking" QB.
Who did what we knew he'd do.
Which is.
Play like an average QB.
And.
Lose.
-
What's the point here?
Is it that Anderson is -- right now, today -- better than Quinn? Of course he is. He's played almost SIX TIMES more games than Quinn. He damn well better be better than Quinn.
The real issue is that in going on 34 starts, Anderson IS THE EXACT SAME GUY.
If you like that guy, great. Glad he looked good to you on Sunday.
What was the end result again?
What's the point here?
Is it that Anderson is -- right now, today -- better than Quinn? Of course he is. He's played almost SIX TIMES more games than Quinn. He damn well better be better than Quinn.
The real issue is that in going on 34 starts, Anderson IS THE EXACT SAME GUY.
If you like that guy, great. Glad he looked good to you on Sunday.
What was the end result again?
The exact same guy? You don't think he has worked hard on touch on his short passes? Last year that is all we heard about the guy, today it seems put to bed.
He has made the players around him play better. He did it in 2007 and he did it again yesterday.
The team seems more supportive to have him in, the offense clicks better, he's had SIX TIMES more experience and is only 16 months older.
He's our guy, if you can't handle it, stay home.
-
Um...yes.
That we lost, despite this "good looking" QB.
Who did what we knew he'd do.
Which is.
Play like an average QB.
And.
Lose.
Um...yes.
That we lost, despite this "good looking" QB.
Who did what we knew he'd do.
Which is.
Play like an average QB.
And.
Lose.
Yeah, we knew he'd put the defense on their heels, which minimized them pinning their ears back and sacking our QB ten times in two games, We knew that our O-line wasn't as bad as they looked when the opposing defense had no respect for our QB's game. We knew it would put the opposing defense on their heels which would open the Running game and allow Jamal Lewis Jerome Harrison a 100+ yard game. He knew he'd take a rookie receiver in his first full start at the #2 position and churn out production to the tune of 10 catches for 140 yards. We knew he'd stand toe-to-toe with Carson Palmer (again), we knew he'd give us a chance to win.
Why on earth would you post negative about this improvement at this position?
A loss is a loss for sure, but when we had several young kids have the game of their career, is that a loss too? Is that really a negative to dwell on?
-
@planet-0range said:
YES!(Losers)Why do you think Harrison sucks?
I thought he did pretty good. Harrison might have lost the game for us with that fumble-6, but I wouldn't bench him yet, he showed with some added carries that he could produce in helping sustain drives.
He did 'something'.
Same with Mohamed Massaquoi, I disagree with you that he sucks and is a bust. I watched the kid run decent patterns in week #1, I believe I posted about it here. I liked what I saw from this kid in camp, presseason and with & without the ball in the first few weeks. It was so good that we finally had someone throw his way and feed an obvious hot hand. Please give the kid another chance before saying he's a loser.
Again he did 'something' and deserves to play.
-
Holy cow! This has probably been posted already, but i'm not reading through 100 posts on this thread......
Anderson needs to stop hitting his recievers in the facemask.
BTW, one of the things i like to do during those dreadful TV timeouts is watch what is going on at both sidelines. Brady spent a good portion of the game at the end of the player line talking to #74. Who is that guy?
-
There were two instances where Mangini made very RAC-like conservative calls that may have burned the team.
1) kicking the FG with 4th and inches on the 10 and an opportunity to seal the deal. Go for it. Who gives a shit if you're up by 3 or by 6? Go for the TD. Play to win.
2) punting with 19 seconds left in regulation on the Bengals 40 yd line. Go for it or try the 57 yarder. Again, play to win.
There were two instances where Mangini made very RAC-like conservative calls that may have burned the team.
2) punting with 19 seconds left in regulation on the Bengals 40 yd line. Go for it or try the 57 yarder. Again, play to win.
They talked about this on the radio today and I really didn't think anybody was buying into it. I was wrong.
The wind was in our face, Cundiff is a free agent scrap heap kicker, the longest FG in history is only 6 yards farther than that, WHEN we miss it the Bengals are two throws away from a FG, and our defense was good enough to kick it away. that was a no brainer decision. It didn't even cross my mind that that would be an option.
-
Um...yes.
That we lost, despite this "good looking" QB.
Who did what we knew he'd do.
Which is.
Play like an average QB.
And.
Lose.
Yeah, we knew he'd put the defense on their heels, which minimized them pinning their ears back and sacking our QB ten times in two games, We knew that our O-line wasn't as bad as they looked when the opposing defense had no respect for our QB's game. We knew it would put the opposing defense on their heels which would open the Running game and allow Jamal Lewis Jerome Harrison a 100+ yard game. He knew he'd take a rookie receiver in his first full start at the #2 position and churn out production to the tune of 10 catches for 140 yards. We knew he'd stand toe-to-toe with Carson Palmer (again), we knew he'd give us a chance to win.
Why on earth would you post negative about this improvement at this position?
A loss is a loss for sure, but when we had several young kids have the game of their career, is that a loss too? Is that really a negative to dwell on?
Why on earth would you post negative about this improvement at this position?
Because, its no longer about who's better or who helps the team. Its about which forum member is right.
5-11
Come on .mz the pussy yell at me for it.
-
-
Stan, was that Lum being right that starting DA equals a loss in a football game? If so, yup he nailed it.
Masters said:
Stan, was that Lum being right that starting DA equals a loss in a football game? If so, yup he nailed it.No, that Quinn was a major loss ... he nailed it x3.
That's the opposite as GOD, for those scoring at home.
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