- This topic has 213 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated Apr. 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm by Anonymous.
Apr. 27, 2015 at 8:35 pm #355697AnonymousInactive
I think Cutler is a pretty fair comparison for Winston. He’s going to lose games because of turnovers and he’ll have his freak out sessions. He’ll also win games because he’s a gunslinger and players will follow him because of his fiery personality.00No votes yet.Please wait...Apr. 27, 2015 at 8:53 pm #355698AnonymousInactive
If you count Arroyo, Lovie is already on his third OC here.00No votes yet.Please wait...Apr. 27, 2015 at 9:18 pm #355699AnonymousInactive
I think Cutler is a pretty fair comparison for Winston. He's going to lose games because of turnovers and he'll have his freak out sessions. He'll also win games because he's a gunslinger and players will follow him because of his fiery personality.
i would compare Winstons "freak out sessions" to Brady more so than to Cutler. Winston would rage because his FSU team doesnt loose. So when there playing bad its unacceptable just like Brady and the Pats. I think Winston is smart enough to know that hes not going 16-0 in the NFL and its gonna come with learning curve. Lets hope he one day does get to the point where hes raging because the Bucs are playing bad. That would be great for us as Bucs fans.00No votes yet.Please wait...Apr. 27, 2015 at 9:19 pm #355700AnonymousInactive
If we do draft a QB it will most likely be done for attendance concerns, aka money. Not because we necessarily need a new QB
Well i'll be damned. Just when i thought the posts of the last few days couldn't get any more ridic, you come along with this gem.You deserve a prize for this one!!!
Right, I get it. Mike Glennon - widely considered the most promising young QB in the league over the past two years - has played well for exactly one quarter of his career.Now you go ahead and re-read that statement of yours a few more times and afterwards it might start to sink in that you have no credibility to speak of. If only he had the right ancestry.
Mike Glennon is going to be a fantastic quarterback in this league.Backup quarterback that is. Boy does not have the testicular fortitude to lead a winning NFL franchise. You'd have to be a damn fool to turn down the opportunity to draft a potential franchise quarterback because Napoleon Dynamite has a decent TD:INT ratio. But then again you'd also have to be a damn fool to deny the fact that humans have had influence on the planet's climate and attempt to chalk it up to the spooky "liberal media." I guess you're just a damn fool.And by the way, I'm white, and I'm not a liberal.
Cool, another one who wants to replace Glennon because of his looks. Noted.Climate cycles have always occurred, with 7 billion people on the planet and far less than that. Remember when I said if they can convince stupid people to buy into man made climate change, they can tax those same stupid people?You're one of those stupid people.
The fact that Glennon is literally the goofiest looking human in American professional sports just makes for an easy insult. My lack of support for him (as well as the team's) is a football-based decision. I don't think he has what it takes to commandeer a top-15 offense and lead a team to a playoff victory. We should get rid of him while he still has value and turn him into an offensive lineman to help a real QB. And yes, I agree that climate change has occurred in the past without human intervention, and it would regardless of our existence. But you're, and I'm sensing a theme here, a damn fool if you want to deny that the activities that our species has engaged in over the past 150-200 years have not had any effect whatsoever on the natural progression of our planet's climate. Notice in my previous post I never mentioned any sort of support for a tax, because I don't support that method of combating this existing problem. But you, being a damn fool, decided to make that assumption to try and add credence to your pathetically weak argument.
It doesn't matter if you support the various methods they use to tax the public on this issue or not, you simply believing the lie combined with many others like you is where they find their motivation.Climate cycles aren't just routine on this planet, but there have been FAR more drastic changes throughout history. Follow the money trail and you'll see why this is all nonsense, or don't and continue to believe a lie. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."This isn't the forum for this, but I just have to ask why statistics need to be manipulated if something is actually true? They don't. This is what people do when they're trying to sell a lie. But this is only one study, the people responsible for the study might have made an attempt to con people into believing their position, but surely nobody with any sort of power or control would repeat such a lie, right?From the same article:Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Hmm, well would you look at that. Some pretty well known names on that list, people who absolutely have the power to exploit this lie for financial gain. And what did they do? Repeated the well known lie in an attempt to con the public. Shouldn't they have done more research to see where this statistic came from? Sure, if they actually cared about finding the truth.
Lol . . .have to love the very brief moment of clarity ("This isn't the forum for this") even if it comes after YOU raised the issue . . . . and even if you continued on . .00No votes yet.Please wait...
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.