WG53 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Oh, no, no, no ... That's the old math. In the new math the saying is adaptable. In this case, we have 2 things (not 3, as in "the saying"): 1) Jamal is retarded, and/or 2) He is a monkey. The comic genius is to adapt the old saying by implying that, while he is obviously not a monkey, he may very well be retarded. See how that can work overtime for you? I know what you are doing. Regardless I remember hearing a song with that idiom in it before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Its time for Locker. He is taking over 9-7 on what was supposed to be a down year, and we improved big time in all three phases of the game. The team is set, and ready to start the Locker era. No need to hold him back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG53 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Its time for Locker. He is taking over 9-7 on what was supposed to be a down year, and we improved big time in all three phases of the game. The team is set, and ready to start the Locker era. No need to hold him back. 9-7 last year does not mean we are capable of that this year. We play better QBs this time around instead of a bunch of rookies like last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 My point is we took a couple steps forward and I believe if its Locker at the helm were contenders for our division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 He is taking over 9-7 on what was supposed to be a down year, and we improved big time in all three phases of the game. The team did not improve in all 3 phases of the game. The pass rush dropped off huge without Washburn and Babin and the offense scored fewer points per game. We don't even have to debate what happened to the run game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Climer thinks Hasselbeck is the starter. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120620/COLUMNIST0202/306190058/Climer-Hasselbeck-leads-quarterback-competition?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Climer thinks Hasselbeck is the starter. http://www.tennessea...ews|text|Sports This is really just his opinion but too many people are on this same line.... What would the front office be thinking here? If we start MH then maybe he can get us in the playoffs? That's delusional if it's there thought process. Against good teams MH did nothing. He fell behind 28-3 to the Steelers, 27-0 against the Texans(threw for 104yds), 23-3 against the Falcons until MH was out of the game, 22-10 against the Saints before he left the game and fell behind 20-6 to the winless hapless Colts before leaving that game.l What exactly is anyone watching to make anyone think MH does anything for this offense/team? The 3 years before 2011 MH had passer ratings of 73.2, 75.1 and 57.8. The guy is flat out done. Locker is going to be the starter in the first 5 games next season regardless of what the plan is. Can anyone honestly say that at that point it would have done Locker some good to sit out those games and miss all the reps in OTAs and training camp? It's totally ridiculous they are even debating this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's not like there was some debate in the games Locker came into. The offense was night and day better as soon as MH left the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scine09 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Actually Oilerman Locker came into the Saints game well before that because his rushing TD gave the Titans a 10-9 lead. And he stayed in the game for all but one play and he missed that play due to injury, on the play that I referenced in my original post in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoD Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's not like there was some debate in the games Locker came into. The offense was night and day better as soon as MH left the field. I've heard Kuharsky say Locker doesn't deserve any credit for those games because he didn't come back and win them. Just a really stupid argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The team did not improve in all 3 phases of the game. The pass rush dropped off huge without Washburn and Babin and the offense scored fewer points per game. We don't even have to debate what happened to the run game. Ok... your talking about last offseason... I'm talking about what we did this past 4 months. Yes we improved our pass rush, retool our OL a bit. Explain to me how we got worse in those areas this offseason, without what happened last offseason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Ok... your talking about last offseason... I'm talking about what we did this past 4 months. Yes we improved our pass rush, retool our OL a bit. Explain to me how we got worse in those areas this offseason, without what happened last offseason. Getting better on paper means nothing. I'll wait until I see a few games before claiming the team has improved in multiple phases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Getting better on paper means nothing. I'll wait until I see a few games before claiming the team has improved in multiple phases. I agree, I'm just looking at the glass as half full. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scine09 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I agree, I'm just looking at the glass as half full. I don't think that oldschool knows the meaning of "the glass half full." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't think that oldschool knows the meaning of "the glass half full." I'm a realist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.