Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is 21-30 yards deep enough...some intersting split stats for Orton

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by topscribe View Post
    What a crock of crap.

    I think I'll just let your argument there stand by itself. You did yourself enough
    damage as it is.

    -----
    Actually the upcoming season will prove my argument. Shopping the internet for smilies wont lend more weight to any of the hapless falsehoods you are posting.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by ursamajor View Post
      Actually the upcoming season will prove my argument. Shopping the internet for smilies wont lend more weight to any of the hapless falsehoods you are posting.
      Oh? Okay, out of the post you followed with this, would you please pick out the
      falsehood?

      Actually, that is a pretty serious charge. You are calling me a liar--you are, n00b.

      Please, be my guest: detail some of those falsehoods for me, will you?

      Better yet, GTFO.

      -----

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by topscribe View Post
        Actually, in Leinart's case, they did in college
        And Rex Grossman looked good...in College. So did Danny Wuerffel (won the Hiesman), Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, Vince Young, Byron Leftwich, and yes Matt Leinert.

        Now lets take a looksie at what Leinert did then what Warner did with those two top flight WR's Boldin and Litzgerald. Then tell me if the Receivers make the QB.

        Matt Leinert (all 21 regular season games as a Cardinal): 3,458 yards passing, 164.7 yards per game, 14 tds, 17 ints, 55.8% comp, 71.7 passer rating.

        Kurt Warner (all 30 reg season games started as a Cardinal): 8,000 yards passing, 266.7 ypg, 57 tds, 31 ints, 93.4 passer rating.


        I see the proof of what you are trying to prove right here
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by ursamajor View Post
          And Rex Grossman looked good...in College. So did Danny Wuerffel (won the Hiesman), Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, Vince Young, Byron Leftwich, and yes Matt Leinert.

          Now lets take a looksie at what Leinert did then what Warner did with those two top flight WR's Boldin and Litzgerald. Then tell me if the Receivers make the QB.

          Matt Leinert (all 21 regular season games as a Cardinal): 3,458 yards passing, 164.7 yards per game, 14 tds, 17 ints, 55.8% comp, 71.7 passer rating.

          Kurt Warner (all 30 reg season games started as a Cardinal): 8,000 yards passing, 266.7 ypg, 57 tds, 31 ints, 93.4 passer rating.


          I see the proof of what you are trying to prove right here


          You don't seem to have a clue as to what I am trying to "prove."

          Are we discussing college football now?

          -----

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by topscribe View Post
            Oh? Okay, out of the post you followed with this, would you please pick out the
            falsehood?

            Actually, that is a pretty serious charge. You are calling me a liar--you are, n00b.

            Please, be my guest: detail some of those falsehoods for me, will you?

            Better yet, GTFO.

            -----
            Okay, here is one

            Yes, and Stokley, count him, Stokley is regarded as one of the
            best slot receivers in the game and was before Cutler ever turned pro.
            Outside of one amazing year in Indy, That had more to do with Peyton going off for 49 tds, uhm FAIL. Gonzales has done similar, Infact with Peyton, if Collie gets his shot, he will look equally as impressive.

            Try again.

            Hillis, count him, Hillis was turning into the type of weapon you haven't seen in Chicago.
            LMAO, ask ANY unbiased source (no Chicago, or Denver fans) who they would rather have in their team's backfield-Hillis or Forte and you will hear "Forte" all day long.

            This is just one post, I could dismantle just about everything you type, and with not a single insult out of desperation (unlike you).

            Call it a "serious charge" or whatever you like. Ill call it the truth
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by topscribe View Post


              You don't seem to have a clue as to what I am trying to "prove."

              Are we discussing college football now?

              -----
              Uhm yeah-you want to blame Orton's lack of production on Chicago's receivers, and credit Denver's receivers for Cutler's numbers.

              I have just showed you an example of a better receiving corps, and the performance of 2 QBs that played with them. One stunk, and one shined.

              There will be another example of this fact this season in Denver.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by ursamajor View Post
                Okay, here is one

                Outside of one amazing year in Indy, That had more to do with Peyton going off for 49 tds, uhm FAIL. Gonzales has done similar, Infact with Peyton, if Collie gets his shot, he will look equally as impressive.
                I guess you forgot to consult Peyton Manning. I only parroted what he said
                about Stokley after Stokley left. But that's okay: I attribute that to your
                ignorance. What I suggest is that you walk up to Manning's face and call him
                a liar . . . but wait for me: I want to be there when you do.


                LMAO, ask ANY unbiased source (no Chicago, or Denver fans) who they would rather have in their team's backfield-Hillis or Forte and you will hear "Forte" all day long.

                This is just one post, I could dismantle just about everything you type, and with not a single insult out of desperation (unlike you).

                Call it a "serious charge" or whatever you like. Ill call it the truth
                When did I compare Hillis to Forte? You are really getting more ridiculous by
                the post. Are you on something you should not be on?

                Hillis isn't even the same type of weapon as Forte. Forte could never do some
                of the things Hillis could do, and Hillis could not do some of the things Forte
                can do.

                Now, can we end your lunacy, or is it your quest to turn this board into a
                Pee Wee Hermann playground?


                Originally posted by ursamajor View Post
                Uhm yeah-you want to blame Orton's lack of production on Chicago's receivers, and credit Denver's receivers for Cutler's numbers.

                I have just showed you an example of a better receiving corps, and the performance of 2 QBs that played with them. One stunk, and one shined.

                There will be another example of this fact this season in Denver.
                I have spent a tremendous amount of time discussing a tremendous number
                of factors regarding the production of both players, as I have many other
                players throughout my 24,000 posts on this board. But I understand that I
                have just got to go a little slower for those with limited cognitive abilities . . .

                -----
                Last edited by topscribe; 06-28-2009, 03:21 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by topscribe View Post
                  When did I compare Hillis to Forte?
                  You do logic problems? I love them. One of the greatest truths in Logic is "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" If Hillis-a RB (A) is a > Weapon then we "havent" seen in Chicago (B) and Forte-a RB (C) is in Chicago, then you are stating that Hillis is better then Forte. And if you are just eluding to FBs then You are stating that he is better then HOFer Bronko Nagurski. Afterall we have seen him in Chicago.

                  Maybe you feel like I am reaching, but the definitive statement you made, covers even this eventuality...

                  Hillis, count him, Hillis was turning into the type of weapon you haven't seen in Chicago.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by ursamajor View Post
                    You do logic problems? I love them. One of the greatest truths in Logic is "if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C" If Hillis-a RB (A) is a > Weapon then we "havent" seen in Chicago (B) and Forte-a RB (C) is in Chicago, then you are stating that Hillis is better then Forte. And if you are just eluding to FBs then You are stating that he is better then HOFer Bronko Nagurski. Afterall we have seen him in Chicago.

                    Maybe you feel like I am reaching, but the definitive statement you made, covers even this eventuality...
                    Apparently, you know little of Hillis. He could play RB, FB, TE, WR, and they
                    said probably even LB. And he is an absolute monster on STs. The Broncos had a
                    player like that at one time: Steve Sewell. But I personally believe Hillis could
                    be even more versatile and have more impact than even Sewell.

                    I don't remember the Bears ever having a player like either one of them.

                    Nonetheless, I said you have never seen a player like him. Are you telling me
                    you actually saw Bronko Nagurski play?

                    -----

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X