Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Is this logical???

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Nice try, but that quote does not in any way indicate that I thought that Jake was only responsible for ONE of Carolina\'s wins. You said Wins? Nope, Jake is only responsible for one of those if you ask Saintfan... ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2004, 05:11 PM   #11
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Is this logical???

Nice try, but that quote does not in any way indicate that I thought that Jake was only responsible for ONE of Carolina\'s wins.

You said
Wins? Nope, Jake is only responsible for one of those if you ask Saintfan...
Now if you can find that quote then post it. If you can\'t be a man and just say you were mistaken. I won\'t hold it against you!
saintfan is offline  
Latest Blogs
Saints: A glimpse of the future Last Blog: 11-19-2014 By: lee909


What i tell you ! !! ! Last Blog: 11-02-2014 By: SAINTstunna


MID TERM ELECTION Last Blog: 10-29-2014 By: teddybarexxx


Old 01-23-2004, 05:29 PM   #12
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Is this logical???

Interesting, so how many wins do you feel Delhomme was responsible for then?
WhoDat is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 05:36 PM   #13
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Is this logical???

I haven\'t thought about it really. I\'d say more than one without blinking tho, which is why I\'ve asked you to locate that quote!
saintfan is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 05:47 PM   #14
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Is this logical???

Hhhmm. How many games was AB responsible for winning this year?
WhoDat is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 05:51 PM   #15
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Is this logical???

Are you trying to deflect from your inability to locate that quote?

:P
saintfan is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 06:01 PM   #16
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Is this logical???

Are you avoiding the question?

How come it\'s always you asking the questions and me answering. C\'mon Saintfan, make a statement for once.
WhoDat is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 01:49 PM   #17
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,234
Blog Entries: 5
Is this logical???

Hard stat to figure Whodat, but I\'ll try, just as soon as you deal with the issue on the table...something to do with a quote you\'re supposed to be looking for as I recall.

Let me save you some time and suggest you be a man and admit you made it up. The quote doesn\'t exist. Careful what you type Whodat...cause it might come back and reflect accurately on ya.

LMAO
saintfan is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 01:49 AM   #18
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 25
Is this logical???

Delhomme and McNair stats for their first year.
1997 Tennessee Oilers 16 16 415 216 52.0 2665 6.42 55 14 13 31/190 36 5 70.4
2003 Carolina Panthers 16 15 449 266 59.2 3219 7.17 67 19 16 23/168 46 9 80.6
Does this mean that Delhomme is a better QB than McNair? Does it make any sense to even try to suggest that? Or, does it make more sense to realize that is was 2-different QB\'s that were on different teams and it\'s no way to compare those stats and determine who was the better QB?

WhoDat is trying to tell everyone because Jakes stats were a little better than Brooks that he is the better QB, or something to that effect. Whatever he\'s trying to say I don\'t get it, and I\'d love someone to clear it up for me.

Brooks first year as a starter
2001 New Orleans Saints 16 16 558 312 55.9 3832 6.87 63 26 22 50/330 55 13 76.4
It simply means that Delhomme had comparable stats his first year starting as McNair had his first year starting. That\'s all it means.
By the same token, bringing Brooks stats to prove he\'s better than someone else doesn\'t hold water either.

I have seen dozens of comparisons made between Brooks\' stats his first seasons with those of Elway, Marino, Montana, to try proving he\'s a s good as they were.
Up until this year, I saw many a post in other boards on how Brooks was better than Peyton because Brooks won a playoff game, and it is all about the wins...

The thing is, don\'t be upset when someone uses the same argument as you, to prove his point.
Don\'t try proving Brooks is the next Elway by comparing their stats their first years, but then dismiss a post that compares Brooks\'s and Delhomme\'s stats their first year.
Don\'t say \"it\'s all about the wins, he won a playoff game\", and then turn around and say \"but he\'s got defense\"..

codename47 is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 02:47 PM   #19
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 5,631
Is this logical???

Fantastic post 47. I like you already.

OK Saintfan, I will be happy to admit that I misconstrued one of your posts. That has happened to all of us at one point. If that\'s not what you meant, I\'ll be happy to say that I was mistaken.

Now, on to the more important issue. That being why you cannot answer a simple question simply put without deflecting attention to another topic. I think you know that you just painted yourself into a corner and you don\'t want to admit that you can\'t get out.

You said that you would credit Delhomme with more than one of Carolina\'s victories without blinking. I ask AGAIN, how many Saint wins to you credit to Brooks this season?

Think you can answer the question this time?

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\"
he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"
WhoDat is offline  
Old 01-25-2004, 02:56 PM   #20
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 25
Is this logical???

Fantastic post 47. I like you already.
Why, thank you!
I aim to please

codename47 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts