Tequilla Quick Thought

[chuck]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Unfortunately those times became increasingly rare after his first season. He was good against USC twice but still almost fucked away one of those by fumbling a breakaway TD across the goal line for a touch back. I can't really remember a "big" game after his first season where he carried the team or was even really good.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

 

[Canard]

Lockner made Bo Pelini look like a genius. That was next to impossible, but 4/20 passing will do it.

 

[Swaye]

 

[Tequilla]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?

Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.

He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.

Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.

Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?

 

[RoadDawg55]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?

Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.

He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.

Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.

Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?

So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.

 

[puppylove_sugarsteel]

Fuck that give me Kessler. Thanks Lane

 

[Tequilla]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?

Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.

He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.

Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.

Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?

So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.

I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.

If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.

And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.

Blah Blah Blah Fuck off.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?

Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.

He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.

Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.

Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?

So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.

I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.

If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.

And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.

I asked for four paragraphs.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

Divided fan base

 

[FreeChavez]

If we had all those secret visit recruits and 5 star runner ups on our roster we'd be undefeated.

in other news, if i was 100 million dollars richer, i'd be fucking kate upton.

had i picked the right powerball tickets, i'd be fucking kate upton.

if we were undefeated, kate upton would be fucking me

 

[Tequilla]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

Way to contradict yourself. If wins and losses are now important, than Miles' 6-4 record as a starter is a lot better than Jake Locker's.

So you're saying that the talent around Locker is as good as Miles?

Locker was better than many would care to admit in the retrospect. His ability to convert on drives where he had the opportunity to tie or win the game late in the 4th was actually at a fairly high level.

He may have had some top end talent around him ... but the depth on those teams wasn't where it needed to be.

Stats on a bad team don't really matter that much and stats on a good team may be muted. It's why I say that I often don't give a shit about stats. Wins are what matters in the grand scheme of things. It's why Brady will always be greater than Manning to me because Brady's got no problem handing the ball off 50x a game if that is what is needed to win the game whereas Manning will always default to wanting to throw the football.

Surely you aren't trying to twist my comment into suggesting that Miles >>> Locker, are you?

So wins aren't the most important stat for a QB? Please write another four paragraphs to answer that.

I recommend that you go take a walk on the beach and gain some perspective since you've seemingly struggled lately with having perspective.

If you can't realize the point that I was making and instead are going to resort to twisting, then wow, just wow.

And if you want to talk about contradicting yourself, take a look at your posts Saturday/Sunday and then go back and listen to the podcast ... your flip flopping would have made John Kerry or any other BS politician proud.

I asked for four paragraphs.

Fixed for you

 

[RavennaDawg]

Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.

 

[topdawgnc]

Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.

800 of those came against Syracuse.

 

[RavennaDawg]

83

 

[PostGameOrangeSlices]

Hahahaha at the Locker's kiss picture. I always LOL at that shit.

What non-inbred family does that?!

 

[Kaepsknee]

Locker with a coach who was smart and open-minded enough to let him run the Newton/Tebow offense would have won a ton of games. 986 rushing yards is a lot, I think at the time the conference record for a frosh, and still the record for a qb.

Cool story bro.

Still doesn't reference how he would bounce the ball off of a cheerleaders ass with a deep wide open receiver.

 

[SevenEleven]

Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

Your right about that. Lockner's got every other Husky QB beat on loss total.

 

[Swaye]

Hahahaha at the Locker's kiss picture. I always LOL at that shit.

What non-inbred family does that?!

Lots of families kiss. With tongue? Not so much.

 

[whlinder]

It's heartening to see that not everyone has forgotten just how hard Locker sucked as a QB.

Since we're dealing in hypos, what if Lockner had been a consensus AA free safety? would sark still be coaching UW without those embarrassing defensive collapses that marked his tenure?

Yeah but what if Lockner had gone to Oregon?