PDA

View Full Version : Wilson looks like Tark



Lippythelion69
12-23-2012, 10:46 PM
Run run run back throw it away no sack

Reignman
12-23-2012, 10:54 PM
And Kaepernick reminds me of Joe Webb. Same throwing motion and run threat.

singersp
12-24-2012, 06:11 AM
Wilson looks like Tark

Wilson has "fish eyes"?

Purple Floyd
12-24-2012, 08:15 AM
I will say one thing- He looks like the real deal.

Funny how a rookie QB like that can look when compared to what we have been programmed to expect from a young QB and even with Bevell calling the plays.

Marrdro
12-26-2012, 11:52 AM
Tark could win on the road.

tastywaves
12-26-2012, 12:06 PM
Beware of rookie seasons with QB's.

Marrdro
12-26-2012, 12:11 PM
Beware of rookie seasons with QB's.
LOL, I have Newton on one of my fantasy teams......

RG III was fun to watch this weekend when he couldn't run and was forced to play QB and Luck has worse stats than Ponder. I wonder what he would look like without Reggie Wayne? Probably just as bad, or worse than Ponder without Harvin.

tastywaves
12-26-2012, 12:20 PM
LOL, I have Newton on one of my fantasy teams......

RG III was fun to watch this weekend when he couldn't run and was forced to play QB and Luck has worse stats than Ponder. I wonder what he would look like without Reggie Wayne? Probably just as bad, or worse than Ponder without Harvin.

I think Luck and RGIII are as good as advertised. We can argue about how well they are playing this year, but watching them play it is clear to me that they have the talent to succeed. I also think they will both have long term success in this league providing they can stay healthy (especially RGIII).

Ponder is another story, he still has a lot to prove in my eyes.

Marrdro
12-26-2012, 12:36 PM
I think Luck and RGIII are as good as advertised. We can argue about how well they are playing this year, but watching them play it is clear to me that they have the talent to succeed. I also think they will both have long term success in this league providing they can stay healthy (especially RGIII).

Ponder is another story, he still has a lot to prove in my eyes.
Well, I guess, but if you take their best WR away, I'm wondering if you would feel the same. Heck, Lucks numbers aren't really that great. Sure, more yards, more TD's, but lower completion percentage and 1/3 more INT's.

RG III is another story, but I think that if you take away his ability to run the offense (make him a passer) like they had to last weekend, teams wouldn't have as many problems with him and that's if you let him keep his top receiver.

tastywaves
12-26-2012, 03:21 PM
I think Luck and RGIII are as good as advertised. We can argue about how well they are playing this year, but watching them play it is clear to me that they have the talent to succeed. I also think they will both have long term success in this league providing they can stay healthy (especially RGIII).

Ponder is another story, he still has a lot to prove in my eyes.
Well, I guess, but if you take their best WR away, I'm wondering if you would feel the same. Heck, Lucks numbers aren't really that great. Sure, more yards, more TD's, but lower completion percentage and 1/3 more INT's.

RG III is another story, but I think that if you take away his ability to run the offense (make him a passer) like they had to last weekend, teams wouldn't have as many problems with him and that's if you let him keep his top receiver.

I believe that receiver was there last year as well, along with Garcon, yet they only managed two wins.

Marrdro
12-26-2012, 03:28 PM
I believe that receiver was there last year as well, along with Garcon, yet they only managed two wins.
They had alot more talent than just them, but their issues weren't just QB last year my friend. Injuries across the whole offense wore them down.

Besides, Painter is no Luck. I don't care how many HOF WR's you run out there for that cat, he was gonna suck.

midgensa
12-26-2012, 03:46 PM
Well, I guess, but if you take their best WR away, I'm wondering if you would feel the same. Heck, Lucks numbers aren't really that great. Sure, more yards, more TD's, but lower completion percentage and 1/3 more INT's.

RG III is another story, but I think that if you take away his ability to run the offense (make him a passer) like they had to last weekend, teams wouldn't have as many problems with him and that's if you let him keep his top receiver.

It is a tired argument. Tired with T-Jack and tired with Ponder. Good quarterbacks are good quarterbacks. Does not matter who they are throwing too.

YES ... Ponder would undoubtedly be better if Harvin was in the lineup, but that is life and if you are good ... you are good.

Brady has put up numbers with less-than-stellar receiving corps a number of times. McNabb did it regularly. Luck is doing it with the same team (minus Garcon) that could not win three games last season. Griffin and Wilson are doing it with teams that could not get it done last season.

If the entire argument for T-Jack and Ponder is that they did not have receivers ... then fuck em ... get the fuck out of the league if you are going to constantly blame your play on other players or the lack there of.

I want to be a Ponder believer ... I truly do. Every game I watch and see and glimpse of something there (something I saw even more rarely with T-Jack) ... but at the end of the day you either perform or you don't. Period. When I watch Luck, Wilson, Griffin, even Newton ... they all perform ... they all look like game changers.

Ponder simply doesn't ... no matter what excuse you want to make.

midgensa
12-26-2012, 03:48 PM
Tark could win on the road.

Yep ... but he struggled mightily on neutral fields.

BTW ... Tark was under .500 on the road for his career.

kevoncox
12-26-2012, 04:30 PM
It is a tired argument. Tired with T-Jack and tired with Ponder. Good quarterbacks are good quarterbacks. Does not matter who they are throwing too.

YES ... Ponder would undoubtedly be better if Harvin was in the lineup, but that is life and if you are good ... you are good.

Brady has put up numbers with less-than-stellar receiving corps a number of times. McNabb did it regularly. Luck is doing it with the same team (minus Garcon) that could not win three games last season. Griffin and Wilson are doing it with teams that could not get it done last season.

If the entire argument for T-Jack and Ponder is that they did not have receivers ... then fuck em ... get the fuck out of the league if you are going to constantly blame your play on other players or the lack there of.

I want to be a Ponder believer ... I truly do. Every game I watch and see and glimpse of something there (something I saw even more rarely with T-Jack) ... but at the end of the day you either perform or you don't. Period. When I watch Luck, Wilson, Griffin, even Newton ... they all perform ... they all look like game changers.

Ponder simply doesn't ... no matter what excuse you want to make.

You are wasting your breath. I love Marr more than anyone else but he love rooting for the underdog. Besides gentlemen movies, Rocky is probably his favorite movie. He will try to convince you that Ponder is having a better season than Luck despite some obvious points.

1) Luck doesn't play with Peterson
2) Luck average comp attempt is 7.0 to ponders 5.9
3) Luck is a Rookie, Ponder isn't
4) Luck has 4100+ yards - Ponder 2700+
5) Luck has thrown for 25% more tds than Ponder.
6) Luck has 5 rushing tds to Ponder's 2

I way Tds more than Ints because an Int can be thrown at the end of a half on a hell mary play and cost the team nothing. An Int thrown on 3rd and 25 deep and caught at the opponent's 10 isn't more than a punt. However, Tds are always points on the board.

Marrdro
12-27-2012, 11:45 AM
You are wasting your breath. I love Marr more than anyone else but he love rooting for the underdog. Besides gentlemen movies, Rocky is probably his favorite movie. He will try to convince you that Ponder is having a better season than Luck despite some obvious points.

1) Luck doesn't play with Peterson
2) Luck average comp attempt is 7.0 to ponders 5.9
3) Luck is a Rookie, Ponder isn't
4) Luck has 4100+ yards - Ponder 2700+
5) Luck has thrown for 25% more tds than Ponder.
6) Luck has 5 rushing tds to Ponder's 2

I way Tds more than Ints because an Int can be thrown at the end of a half on a hell mary play and cost the team nothing. An Int thrown on 3rd and 25 deep and caught at the opponent's 10 isn't more than a punt. However, Tds are always points on the board.

I despise Rocky movies.....:)

Look, I agree with both of you, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Ponder is crap, not until I see him work with viable WR's. Truth be told, we did see him with Percy and things were clicking pretty good, atleast until Percy went down.

And both of you know that not all QB's are going to progress at the same rate. If they did Eli would have been shitcanned long before he won 2 superbowls.

Marrdro
12-27-2012, 11:48 AM
Yep ... but he struggled mightily on neutral fields.

BTW ... Tark was under .500 on the road for his career.

Thats a winning record isn't it? Again, I love watching the young kids play as well as they have. For years I've said that the QB pool sucked, now its getting a real nice influx of talent that I hope we enjoy for many years.

I'm just not ready to crown them until we find out what they are going to look like year 2, 3 and even 4 (ala Newton). Heck even Ryan has doubters right now and Flacco might be a Free Agent let alone what has happened to Sanchez up there in Jetsville.

On a side note, anyone still want Ryan as our HC? At one point I think I was the only one that called him a chucklehead.

Lippythelion69
12-27-2012, 08:40 PM
Ponders arm is weak period
If he had a receiver that gets down field the ball would be under thrown

marstc09
01-01-2013, 08:54 PM
Tark could win on the road.

So does Wilson.

marstc09
01-01-2013, 08:56 PM
Tark could win on the road.

Yep ... but he struggled mightily on neutral fields.

BTW ... Tark was under .500 on the road for his career.

Owned.

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 09:14 AM
So does Wilson.
3 wins/5 losses. 3 of his road wins came vs Cards, Detroit and Miami. LOL. Gimme a break.

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 09:30 AM
Yep ... but he struggled mightily on neutral fields.

BTW ... Tark was under .500 on the road for his career.
You counting his Ties?

Fran Tarkenton Career Game Log - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00/gamelog/)

tastywaves
01-03-2013, 12:11 PM
You counting his Ties?

Fran Tarkenton Career Game Log - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00/gamelog/)

Why would that make a difference? Ties are irrelevant.

And, what's up with this response?


Originally Posted by midgensa
Yep ... but he struggled mightily on neutral fields.

BTW ... Tark was under .500 on the road for his career.
Thats a winning record isn't it?

I'm pretty sure under .500 is not a winning record.

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 01:25 PM
Why would that make a difference? Ties are irrelevant.

And, what's up with this response?



I'm pretty sure under .500 is not a winning record.

8-8 in the NFL is considered a winning record. Ties also count as wins in Tie breakers.

Purple Floyd
01-03-2013, 01:33 PM
Actually it is called an even record buy anyway...

tastywaves
01-03-2013, 01:37 PM
8-8 in the NFL is considered a winning record. Ties also count as wins in Tie breakers.

There you go again redefining things.

Ties are just that, ties. Their like games that were never played. 8-7-1 is a winning season which is better than 8-8. That's 8.5/16 (.531) vs. 8/16 (.500).

8-8 is not a winning record, nor is it a losing record.

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 01:41 PM
There you go again redefining things.

Ties are just that, ties. Their like games that were never played. 8-7-1 is a winning season which is better than 8-8. That's 8.5/16 (.531) vs. 8/16 (.500).

8-8 is not a winning record, nor is it a losing record.

LOL, its not a losing record right? Thus, my question, are you counting Ties. I was just asking.....your the one who made me start giving my opinion. (snicker)

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 01:42 PM
Actually it is called an even record buy anyway...
Again, just asking or good friend Midg a question on Ties. Lets see how he counts them.

tastywaves
01-03-2013, 01:44 PM
LOL, its not a losing record right? Thus, my question, are you counting Ties. I was just asking.....your the one who made me start giving my opinion. (snicker)

I didn't add up Tark's wins and losses on the roads, just simply commenting that Midgensa claimed that Tark was UNDER .500 on the road, which implies a losing record. Now if you are saying that he was not under .500 then you have something. Ties should not be counted in this discussion as either losses or wins...just throw them out completely.

Marrdro
01-03-2013, 01:49 PM
I didn't add up Tark's wins and losses on the roads, just simply commenting that Midgensa claimed that Tark was UNDER .500 on the road, which implies a losing record. Now if you are saying that he was not under .500 then you have something. Ties should not be counted in this discussion as either losses or wins...just throw them out completely.
I hastly counted 2 times......came up with 60 L/59 W's if you count ties and 60/60 if you count ties. Thus the question on T's.

Could have missed a couple thats why I gave the link. Midg likes to double check me. :)

tastywaves
01-03-2013, 03:21 PM
I hastly counted 2 times......came up with 60 L/59 W's if you count ties and 60/60 if you count ties. Thus the question on T's.

Could have missed a couple thats why I gave the link. Midg likes to double check me. :)

According to your link, I counted 57 W, 60 L and 4 Ties on away games. Ties are not wins. His actual winning percentage on the road (if I counted right) would be as follows:

1 point for a win, .5 for a tie and 0 for a loss. Or, 59/121 = .488 winning percentage. According to this, he had a losing record in away games.

I was surprised at how many ties he played in during his career.

Reignman
01-03-2013, 04:43 PM
I was surprised at how many ties he played in during his career.His first 13 seasons in the league there was no overtime so games ended in a tie. OT wasn't implemented until 1974.

midgensa
01-03-2013, 07:39 PM
Thats a winning record isn't it? Again, I love watching the young kids play as well as they have. For years I've said that the QB pool sucked, now its getting a real nice influx of talent that I hope we enjoy for many years.

I'm just not ready to crown them until we find out what they are going to look like year 2, 3 and even 4 (ala Newton). Heck even Ryan has doubters right now and Flacco might be a Free Agent let alone what has happened to Sanchez up there in Jetsville.

On a side note, anyone still want Ryan as our HC? At one point I think I was the only one that called him a chucklehead.


Since when is under .500 a winning record by the way?

midgensa
01-03-2013, 07:42 PM
LOL, its not a losing record right? Thus, my question, are you counting Ties. I was just asking.....your the one who made me start giving my opinion. (snicker)

Jesus ... counting ties or not counting ties does not matter.

Tark on the road for his career ... 57-60-4. That is below .500. Really simple actually to see it. See, 57 wins is less than half of 121 career road games. What do you want to do ... count the ties as wins and losses? That just splits it. And honestly ... as a WINNING PERCENTAGE ... he WON 57 out of 121 games for .471. Hardly that impressive.

By the way ... since you need your hand held here is the SPLITS link

Fran Tarkenton Career Splits - Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00/splits/)