Jump to content

AnotherLawyer

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AnotherLawyer

  1. Yeah. None of them looked like a superstar in their first few games. And none of them looked like a superstar for 100% of their career. A couple of them are even vilified by an outspoken contingent of fans. VY and Colt maybe looked like superstars for 95% of their careers, but not 100%. And you still had a vocal contingent of dumbasses wanting VY to move to WR and to start John Chiles over Colt. And that's the point. I admit Arch looks worse than I could have possibly imagined, but I sure as shit didn't expect him to look all-world. Some of the dumb motherfuckers here did. If he still looks like this in October, bench him and let him earn it back.
  2. Yeah, it is. There’s a difference between starting in injury relief and being the full time starter. You don’t have the injured starter there to talk to. Also, I just realized I didn’t add more of Simms’s games in. I got distracted.
  3. In Chris Simms's first start, he went 10-20 for 130 yards with 1 INT, 0 TD and was sacked 4 times (Applewhite didn't do much better when he came in, going 5-11 for 53 yards and fumbling on the last drive). In VY's first start he was 12-16 for 156 with 1 INT, 1 TD. The next game he was 7-13 for 65 yards. The next game he was 8-15 for 68 yards and 2 INT. But VY did run for 100+ yards with a TD or two at least once, if not twice, in that time span. Colt was 12-19 for 178 with 3 TD. The next game he was 19-32 for 154 with 1 INT, 1 TD. The next game he was 7-8 for 124 and 2 TD. Sam was 15-27 for 222 with 1 TD. The next game he was 21-40 for 298 with 2 INT, 2 TD. He didn't start the game after that due to injury. Ewers was 16-24 for 225 with 1 INT, 2 TD. The next game he was 9-12 for 134. He didn't start the game after that due to injury. Point is, that's five NFL QBs, including two NPOYs, none of whom exactly beat the world in their first few games as the full-time starter. None of them looked polished or consistent, but all of them showed flashes of what they could do. All of them eventually looked polished and consistent (bad games here and there notwithstanding). Four of them could have led a national championship team. One of them did. Aside from that, there's a shitload of difference between a RS-SO and a RS-JR/SR. You can't compare Colt's or VY's or Simms's or Ewer's last year to Arch's first three games. If he's still playing like this in mid-October, then he's not the guy, at least for right now and we had one of those about 25 years ago who ended up winning a title. I'm not saying Arch is going to be VY. I'm only pointing out that VY couldn't beat out Chance fucking Mock, and even when he did he got benched at least twice.
  4. Fuck this thread and fuck the Ewers thread, too. Y'all need an enema.
  5. Is this the "new" Quinn Ewers thread?
  6. Until 1997, Texas generally didn't out the player for fumbling, even if the fumble was lost. For example, in '95 we fumbled 22 times and lost 11 but no one is listed as having fumbled. In '97, we started keeping track of the play-by-play and fumble culprits. Ricky fumbled 10x in '97: 1x each against Rutgers, UCLA, Rice, CU, and Tceh; 2x against okie lite; and 3x against the dirt burglars. He put the ball on the ground roughly once every 28 carries. In '98, Ricky fumbled 11x: 1x each against UCLA, KSU, Rice, Iowa State, zeroU, and Nebraska; 2x against Baylor; and 3x against aggy. That's roughly once every 33 carries. That's not fumbles lost, just fumbles. I remember Ricky fumbling a lot, but in hindsight it's not that much given that he had the ball so frequently. I didn't look it up for Gibson, but he seems to fumble every 5-6 carries.
  7. Jesse Palmer sounds like he sucks.
  8. It’s about people who ate shit on this thread while you watched, man, now feeling a little vindication. Unless you were, you know, posting in the wrong thread. Then I don’t know.
  9. I agree. Points are points when you have 45 minutes left to play. At worst it could have been 14-6.
  10. Sark didn’t underthrow those half dozen passes, but he sure sucks at goal line offense. Arch has looked much better in hurry up O. He just needs to settle in and play. He’ll be fine.
  11. Hey...I thought of another phrase that originally meant something different but evolved to mean something different due to usage. "Blood is thicker than water" originally meant that those who shed blood together, like in a war, have a bond greater than those who merely shared a bond of being born from the same mother (the "water" of the womb). But dumbasses, probably those who never experienced bloodshed, misconstrued "blood" to mean blood running through their veins, i.e. their genetics. So that's what it means today.
  12. Jesus fuck has it been ten years?
  13. Hey, now. We were the smarties of the last mouth breather conference, as well.
  14. No. Just saying. My kids laugh at me for calling everything 'tennis shoes.'
  15. Tell me you're an old fart without telling me you're an old fart 🤣
  16. Yeah, but the air is hotter and somehow boring.
  17. Yeah, I'm sure. When a phrase is widely used to mean something different, that becomes the meaning. Language evolves. "The customer is always right" is an example of language evolving. It was originally a marketing phrase meaning the market determines the viability of a marketing strategy. Now the meaning has to do with customer service, not marketing strategy. The original Latin phrase that was mistranslated to "begging the question" meant "to assume the original premise"--basically that the conclusion is not based on reason. It's simply a conclusion or, like you said, a logical fallacy. An example would be "broccoli is good for you because it contains sulphurophane." This assumes sulphurophane is good. It lacks reason. It's a logical fallacy, even if true. It's been so often misused that it's evolved to mean "raises the question." But why trust me? I'm just that lawyer guy.
  18. Yeah, well, they're like wrong, man. The phrase is a mistranslation from Latin and our predecessors kept it because they were stubborn and couldn't admit they were wrong. In modern vernacular, "begs the question" can also mean "prompts the question." People who argue otherwise are just willfully ignorant of the fact that language evolves and some long-dead dude who probably got a D- in Latin translated the original phrase incorrectly. I had Con Law with Professor Bobbitt in the early 2000s and he dressed me down in class for using it "incorrectly." Derailed the entire lecture for about half an hour. If you didn't do the reading for class that day, you're welcome. Jesus, he was such an arrogant prick. Good for Quinn making the active roster, by the way. He may not have met expectations here, and may end up being a career back-up or out of the league early, but he definitely improved over the preseason after that rocky start. Good on him, and good reflection on the Longhorns.
  19. Fuck I'm distracted as fuck today. Sorry for three replies. Here's the reason for the difference: FTN's stat is Air Yds/Attempt: Total receiving yards intended, including both complete and incomplete pass targets. What I was quoting were Air Yds/Completion. It doesn't make a shit of a difference, I guess, since the conclusion is the same.
  20. Here's a site with the same stats I had: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2024/passing_advanced.htm
  21. I can’t get those numbers to come up for me on that site, but, sure, let’s go with that. I don’t think it changes the overall conclusion that the vast majority of passes completed are in the air for under 10 yards from LOS.
×
×
  • Create New...