could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    The real question is: What makes a QB great? and Can one learn it? What skills can be developed? What skills are "innate"? The central issue is "nature vs. nurture".

    I like the posters opinion that vision, ability to process and react are crucial, along with intelligence and leadership etc. and that these skills can't be learned. I am not sure we will ever get to a definitive answer on this but I sense that many things such as vision/ability to process quickly and correctly and react can be dramatically improved. Everyone's DNA and nervous system are different but I do know the Army trains pilots including drone pilots on their reaction processing. Can anyone become a Tom Brady? Absolutely not. It takes the basic DNA or biological endowment to be top performer.

    The thing for a coach/GM needs to keep in mind in selecting players is which skills can be learned and those which one needs exceptional biological endowment. It is really interesting that NFL combine has testing for 40yd/ 3 cone drills/ weight lifts but perhaps ignores more fundamental areas of sport psychology that will ultimately determine success. Once sport psychology becomes more of a science we will see coaching and player selection change to meet these advances.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:


    In response to rkarp's comment:


    I keep hearing how Pats QB's have so much value because they learn at the feet of the HOF TB and in the head of master BB. where are these QB's over the past decade plus?


    Ok, I can see Cassel, and his fill in year with the Pats, and even his 1 good year in KC. But really, any one else? Hoyer and his 3 game career in Brownsville?


    Where are these QB's that have gone to the school of BB that are groomed for greatness? Where are these QB's that have sat next to TB in meetings and some of his wisdom has made them NFL QB's?


    The list is long of failed QB's drafted here that have been non NFL prospects, never mind players. 



    OK here is my take on your passive aggressive shot at Bill Belichick. The Pats have had and groomed good back up QB's. Good enough that BB is comfortable with them on the team. The only time we had to see one in extended time (Cassell) the team went 11-5 and he did well. Please remember that Cassell did not look any better that preseason than Mallett has looked this preseason. The other part of your theory is that QB's that are groomed to be good/great are normally high draft picks, the Pats don't usually pick high in the draft and certainly don't draft a 1st round QB with TB12 on the roster.  Everyone mentions Aaron Rodgers, but don't forget he was a first round pick that lasted til the 20's but was projected to go much much higher. Pretty simple really.
    [object HTMLDivElement]




    This. Again. Every week.


    Why are you asking the readers here? You mention that the media is reporting it, why don't you go ask your media brethren why they feel that way? Also, name a better combination of a coach and veteran QB for a young guy to learn from than Belichick and Brady. Maybe you prefer Rex Ryan and Michael Vick? Payton and Brees? I haven't seen them produce another guy of Cassell's value, or Hoyer. Coughlin and Eli? I'd have to google names the Giants backup QBs. Tomlin and Roethlisburger? 



     


     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    I think that hoyer is going to surprise.   Manzel will ride the pine when the browns are relaveant. 

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

    But, but I'm a good poster!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    I think that hoyer is going to surprise.   Manzel will ride the pine when the browns are relaveant. 

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

    But, but I'm a good poster!



    It's funny you mention Manziel, because I don't hear his name around here. Here is a guy who has done nothing and yet already has seemingly been placed in a status that he has no right to be in...I just don't like the guy. I don't like the way he handles himself and I don't like his hype. In fact I'm going to enjoy watching the nfl carve him up, because that's what I think is going to happen.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:


    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 


    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.


    do some research, and then come back and comment



    I don't need to do any research.  Your comment tells me you are making a big leap from "great to sit in meetings with Brady and BB" to "great school of QB".  Are those two things synonymous?  I don't think so.  It pretty logical for one to say that it must be great to study under Brady and BB.  How many backups get to study under both a HoF QB and coach?  Yeah, that's pretty damned rare.  It would be like studying economics in college and having 2 Nobel prize winning professors.  Here is where I think you are mistaken though.  Studying under a great QB and coach might help you maximize your talents, but it isn't going to make you more than what you are.  An average QB isn't going to be a great QB merely because the teachers are great.  You could make me study under Stephen Hawkin but that doesn't mean I'm going to be a great physicist.


    As for suggesting I do some research, don't let your board popularity go to your head.  I didn't disagree with you that people say it's great to study under Brady and BB.  They say it because it's true.  Or perhaps studying under Sanchez and Rex would be better?  I just don't see how that equates to "great school of QB" or an insinuation that our backup QB's should be like Brees because of that.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

     

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

     

    do some research, and then come back and comment

     

     


    I don't need to do any research.  Your comment tells me you are making a big leap from "great to sit in meetings with Brady and BB" to "great school of QB".  Are those two things synonymous?  I don't think so.  It pretty logical for one to say that it must be great to study under Brady and BB.  How many backups get to study under both a HoF QB and coach?  Yeah, that's pretty damned rare.  It would be like studying economics in college and having 2 Nobel prize winning professors.  Here is where I think you are mistaken though.  Studying under a great QB and coach might help you maximize your talents, but it isn't going to make you more than what you are.  An average QB isn't going to be a great QB merely because the teachers are great.  You could make me study under Stephen Hawkin but that doesn't mean I'm going to be a great physicist.

     

     

    As for suggesting I do some research, don't let your board popularity go to your head.  I didn't disagree with you that people say it's great to study under Brady and BB.  They say it because it's true.  Or perhaps studying under Sanchez and Rex would be better?  I just don't see how that equates to "great school of QB" or an insinuation that our backup QB's should be like Brees because of that.

    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    Go read some of Reiss comments on "schooling" by both BB and TB and what he thinks it does for a QB value. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to carawaydj's comment:

    Where the heck did this come from?  Great school of QB?  At most I have heard how learning behind a HoF QB can be beneficial for a backup QB.  Never have I heard anything about the Pats being a great school of QB.

    There are 32 teams and it's pretty rare for a backup QB to go on to greatness.  They are usually just average with their new teams.  You mention Brees, Rodgers, and others.  You have to draw a distinction between a QB drafted to be the heir apparent and a QB drafted to merely provide a capable backup to a starter who isn't going anywhere.  Brees was the 2nd QB drafted that year and the first pick of the 2nd round.  He was drafted to be the future starter, not just a backup.  Rodgers was a 1st round pick also drafted to be the future starter.  Garappolo is arguably the fist QB drafted in the Brady era to potentially be a starter for the Pats down the road.

    So the question would be how many backup QB's drafted only to be capable backup QB's went on to do anything above average elsewhere?  Matt Schaub comes to mind.  Some others like Garcia were alright.  It's pretty rare for perennial backups to go on to greatness, or even goodness.

    Anyone claiming the Pats are a great QB school is smoking something wacky.  Anyone trying to criticize the Pats for not producing backup QB's that went on to greatness is also smoking some funny stuff.  Again, it is very very rare for any QB drafted to merely be a backup to do well elsewhere.  Show me a backup QB that became great and I'll show you a QB drafted to be the heir apparent.  A QB drafted fairly high.  Brady is a whopping exception and we got lucky there.  If BB had even the slightest idea of what Brady would become he wouldn't have been picked in the 6th round.


    This is what being level-headed sounds like.



    If you never heard, or read, anyone's opinion how great it is for a QB to be in meetings with TB and BB then you needn't read any further. 

    You should do some checking on how prev eland this thinking is, on this board and away from this board.

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



    rkarp, in light of the bolded comments from your post above do you not see a contradiction between your first bolded quote and what followed and your second bolded quote?

    I'm not sure what's up with you but your posts are coming across as much more aggressive and argumentative than I'm accustomed to seeing from you.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    My god is RKrap, dumb. He just listed proof of other QBs developed here going off and doing some good things elsewhere and here is asking why there is a reason why some may feel a BB/Brady developed QB who is still here, not cut and progressing, as a potential solution to another team's QB problem.

     

    LMAO

     

    The simple conclusion is no further than looking at Geno Smith taken in the high second rd.

     

    Any rational human would rather have Mallett as a prospect to groom than Geno Smith.  One played in a pro style offense in the SEC and has spent 3 years learning at the University of the New England Patriots by the greatest coach and quite possibly the best QB ever.

     

    The question posed is just so moronically dumb, I can't even continue.

     

    How ironic...The answer lies within the framework of RKrap's favorite team, the Jetsies.

     

    Case closed.

     

     




    So Rusty, why not compare Mallet to fellow third rounder, Nick Foles?

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    My god is RKrap, dumb. He just listed proof of other QBs developed here going off and doing some good things elsewhere and here is asking why there is a reason why some may feel a BB/Brady developed QB who is still here, not cut and progressing, as a potential solution to another team's QB problem.

     

    LMAO

     

    The simple conclusion is no further than looking at Geno Smith taken in the high second rd.

     

    Any rational human would rather have Mallett as a prospect to groom than Geno Smith.  One played in a pro style offense in the SEC and has spent 3 years learning at the University of the New England Patriots by the greatest coach and quite possibly the best QB ever.

     

    The question posed is just so moronically dumb, I can't even continue.

     

    How ironic...The answer lies within the framework of RKrap's favorite team, the Jetsies.

     

    Case closed.

     

     




    So Rusty, why not compare Mallet to fellow third rounder, Nick Foles?

     

     



    Foles got a shot due to injuries. Maybe Mallet would do fine if given a chance to start and play 5-6 full games in a row and to gain some continuity and success with the starters, as Cassell did in 2008 and Brady did in 2001. We just don't know. Did Foles light it up in preseason last year? I thought he started the year as 3rd string. Lets be honest, if Bledsoe had not gotten hurt giving Brady an opportunity he took full advantage of, many on this board would have called the 6th round pick in 2000 a bust and a waste. How many quarterbacks are drafted in rounds 1-3 every year? How many actually turn out to be solid, starting NFL QBs you would want leading your team? Here is the list since 2006, I left out this years pickes, its way too early to evaluate them. 

    2013: R1 - EJ Manual R2 - Geno Smith R3 - Mike Glennon

    2012: R1 - Andrew Luck, RGIII, Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeded R2 - Brock Osweiler R-3 - Russell Wilson, Nick Foles

    2011 - R1- Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder R2 - Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick R3 - Ryan Mallett

    2010 - R1 - Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow R2 - Jimmy Clausen R3 - Colt McCoy

    2009 - R1 - Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman R2 - Pat White

    2008 - R1 - Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco R2 - Brian Brohm R3 - Chad Henne

    2007 - R1 Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn R2 - Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton R3 - Trent Edwards

    2006 - R1 - Vince Young, Matt Leinert, Jay Cutler R2 - Kellen Clemens, Tavaris Jackson R3 - Charlie Whitehurst, Brodie Croyle

    There are no more than a handful I would have the trust to lead a team to the playoffs and have a real shot to win it all (Luck, Kaepernick, Ryan, Flacco, Wilson, Newton if he has a very strong supporting cast). Most of the teams that drafted these guys said 'We got our guy for the future'. Beleichick said "Mallett represented good value at that pick'. 

    RKarp, why don't you ask Reiss about it, you have access to him. Instead of just saying you don't agree with it, why don't you get us some insight? Reiss is much closer to it than I will ever be, I'd be very interested in what makes him feel this way.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from jjbag. Show jjbag's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?



    Yes, Queen Bean, second round pick QBs who start as rookies and win 8 games are very common.  Are you claiming BB, a defensive guy "developed Brady"?  Oh my.  Surely you have some sort of documentation about regarding this claim.  Did he also "develop" Mallet?  Still waiting on that top 10 pick for the ROI?  Bwahahhahahaha!

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually BB via Charlie Weis did develop Brady was a VERY raw QB his first season, Bill kept an Extra QB on the roster that year in order not to lose Tom to another teams "practice squad". So yes BB did develop Brady, according to both Brady and Weis(BB gets the credit via Weis) Tom and Charlie spent numerous hours together and developed an extremely close relationship with one another. So again, I'll say yes, BB developed Brady.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    Think about it folks.  A "back-up" QB is a player who is expected to spell your "starting" QB for a short period of time when they are out due to injury. I do not think any team views them as their next #1 until the old #1 is out for good. Otherwise, unless you are drafting a QB to BE your starting QB, all back-ups may have "starting" potential, but, may not have the "it" factor so many have pointed out here to be the every day starting QB.


    Tom Brady, drafted where he was, is the rarest of draft picks.  A pick who was not expected to be but a regular on the roster and not a star.  A "flyer" as they say. Throughout NFL history, how many low round picks have risen to the prominence Brady has in their career and stayed there? Until the day the Pats draft a QB, who many here would think could oust TB as the #1, is the day TB is on the way out very shortly.


    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



    rkarp, in light of the bolded comments from your post above do you not see a contradiction between your first bolded quote and what followed and your second bolded quote?

    I'm not sure what's up with you but your posts are coming across as much more aggressive and argumentative than I'm accustomed to seeing from you.



    If you actuall read anything I have posted before Thursday and after Thursday, I did not think Mallet laid an egg. I thought Mallett made the correct reads, made some very good throws under pressure, and displayed arm strength not found in many NFL QB's.

    this was done with a patchwork OL that played poorly, and receivers obviously not on the same page as Mallett.

    I have also seen Mallet with the first unit in practice, and he has looked very good.

    So no, I do not see the contradiction

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



  • I agree with your comment about players playing horribly and never said anything contrary to that. But the thread was about QB's in the meeting room with BB and TB12, and that's what I commented on. I didn't feel you needed to be so condescending to the other poster above because he didn't agree with your premise. And you prove my point by being so condescending to me telling me to "channel my inner rusty" jut because I didn't agree with you? Got news for ya pal, other folks in this forum may know as much (if not more) about football as you do! And you really got Rusty living in your head rent free!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



    rkarp, in light of the bolded comments from your post above do you not see a contradiction between your first bolded quote and what followed and your second bolded quote?

    I'm not sure what's up with you but your posts are coming across as much more aggressive and argumentative than I'm accustomed to seeing from you.



    +1 That's all I was trying to say.

  •  
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    do some research, and then come back and comment



    Rkarp I usually enjoy your posts but you have been a very negative and condescending poster lately. No need for it.



    Seriously Quagmire, we just watched a group of players be handed a golden opportunity to make this team and lay an egg. 

    We have been on this very board for a few months wondering about the LB and TE depth. We also openly questioned what would happen if 1 or 2 DT went down with injury.

    I am not being negative. I am posting what I saw Thursday night, and through out 7 practices attended. 

    Btw, I am one of the few on the board that has continued to state how good Mallett will be, that criticizing Solder is ridiculous, that Boyd is still tantalizing, that Halapio surprised me and played well, that Fleming could be our starting T in 3 years, and on and on.

    If you want to channel your inner Rusty and tell us after Thursday night game that nobody played poorly, please go ahead and do so.



    I agree with your comment about players playing horribly and never said anything contrary to that. But the thread was about QB's in the meeting room with BB and TB12, and that's what I commented on. I didn't feel you needed to be so condescending to the other poster above because he didn't agree with your premise. And you prove my point by being so condescending to me telling me to "channel my inner rusty" jut because I didn't agree with you? Got news for ya pal, other folks in this forum may know as much (if not more) about football as you do! And you really got Rusty living in your head rent free!



  • My apologies if you found it condescending, that was not my intention.

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    [/QUOTE]


    My apologies if you found it condescending, that was not my intention.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok thanks. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from soxrockursox. Show soxrockursox's posts

    Re: could some one enlighten me on this great school of QB theory?

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    Do not backdown from RKrap, Quags (and ATJ).

     

    His behavior has always been that way with the holier than thou insider connection angle he tries to portray here to get attention.

     

    What you're seeing is par for the course, not anything new.

     

    The board needs to protect itself against this kind of troll work since his wife is a mod.

     

     



    If Rkarp's wife was really a mod you would.have been banned agian already and agian the second you came back under a different name. Think about it or your not to bright.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share