Richard Sherman describes Mahomes

[DFWJC]

I don't know what you'd consider "his era," but Romo's one of the top QB of the last 40 years.

Era-Adjusted Passer Rating, 1980-2019
(min 4000 att)

I really prefer the era adjusted QB stats to put things in a better context. The older guys sometimes get left behind without it. Guys like Marino and Kelly would be WAY down the list otherwise.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Lol, you flunked math. 10 times a negative is a negative, so if Mahomes is10 times a negative he is more of a negative.

As for English, you flunked the logic portion, right? You seem to think that someone saying Mahomes is 10 times better just makes it so, and creates a real world math equation, when it’s really just something someone said that has no measurable substance. Plus you seem to think that just because you can create a negative on paper means that applies to everything. The reality is if you have 3 oranges, you cannot take away 4 oranges and create a negative number of oranges That’s the difference between reality and simply what someone says.

LOL...omer...you are a funny guy. I never said Mahomes is 10 times a negative. Now....if dak is less than 10 times Mahomes...DAK...might be the negative. You just don't get math, ratios or the English language. I do admit...you have a little bit of Forest Gump in ya. You can really obfuscate a conversation...that is a mighty fine talent forest.

Some Amazon Prime users wish they could give zero stars...or less. Some investors wish the market never showed a negative (and some certainly HOPE for negatives!) But according to you, forest gump...negatives do not exist. Failed math. LOL...keep it up....keep running forest!

 

[G2]

So...when do people get launched into HOF status? After they retire? And are they ALL only to take shots at Dak? Or do you just take them all that way?

1) - I'm not speaking of people, I'm referring to Romo, specifically.
2) - Yes after Romo retired.
3) - Re-Submit your question.
4) - No, I do not.

 

[cern]

he most certainly does not. But...don't accuse me of trying to appear to be superior to others...whilst trotting out a polysyllabic word he knows nobody uses ever. At least most certainly not...HERE.

While I don't consider myself a superior being, I sometimes throw out a big word. Usually in jest. And while negative gravity is a given, don't bet the farm on negative light.

 

[DFWJC]

Sherman was on the 2014 Seattle Super Bowl team and got front-row view of when Romo and Williams did this to them in Seattle. Only home loss all year in reg season and playoffs

 

[G2]

While I don't consider myself a superior being, I sometimes throw out a big word. Usually in jest. And while negative gravity is a given, don't bet the farm on negative light.

(As I'm watching a doc on dark matter) , big words are fun at times.

 

[cern]

(As I'm watching a doc on dark matter) , big words are fun at times.

As long as we avoid being vainglorious.

 

[G2]

As long as we avoid being vainglorious.

Exactly!

 

[black label]

That sounds like something awesome to smoke!

Funny I just got some alien sherbet

 

[CWR]

I didn’t say I enjoyed watching their teams.

I enjoy watching the great individual talent.

I agree

 

[Corso]

Funny I just got some alien sherbet

You lucky so-and-so...

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

While I don't consider myself a superior being, I sometimes throw out a big word. Usually in jest. And while negative gravity is a given, don't bet the farm on negative light.

I made that one about light because I work with light. I operate spectrophotometers, specifically though lenses like welding filters. We have to measure "light" (including UV and IR as well as visible) to 6 decimal places. The machines have trouble that far out, and often give us a negative value when it runs its calc programs. We make fun of it.

Having said that...the universe is a strange and wonderful place. The thought of "negative light" intrigues me.

 

[OmerV]

And yet...here you are arguing with me about it. I'd say, at the very least... you yourself are in the same boat you put me in.

A banker would disagree with you about your oranges. And would indeed try to recoup his one orange we said we'd owe that we never had. A negative. It's called debt...underwater....in the red. All that is in the negative. Even LIGHT and GRAVITY....acknowledge negative. Math and nature and light have negatives.

Like I said...we lost sight of the original argument. That is what people do when they know they are wrong and won;t admit it. It was YOU who first argued a person that acknowledged "less than zero"..."failed math". When math acknowledges less than zero.

You can spin and throw shade and do all the things the internet allows...but in that...you cannot escape. You are wrong. Very simple: Math, accountants, nature...allows for negatives. So sorry for your loss.

You do not fail math when you acknowledge negatives. You fail life when you keep defending the accusation of it.

lol - and yet? I'm arguing because we are saying different things.

With a banker the negative is merely a notation in a computer, and a debt to be repaid. It doesn't involve actually having 10 dollars in your hand and physically taking away 11. That is impossible in the banking world just as it is with the orange analogy.

With talent, you can't write a talent check and overdraw your talent account, and track it by making a negative notation in a computer. There is either some level of talent, or no level of talent.

You are struggling with this, and scrambling to pretend what doesn't make sense does

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

lol - and yet? I'm arguing because we are saying different things.

With a banker the negative is merely a notation in a computer, and a debt to be repaid. It doesn't involve actually having 10 dollars in your hand and physically taking away 11. That is impossible in the banking world just as it is with the orange analogy.

With talent, you can't write a talent check and overdraw your talent account, and track it by making a negative notation in a computer. There is either some level of talent, or no level of talent.

You are struggling with this, and scrambling to pretend what doesn't make sense does

But...we aren't talking about one single thing. We are talking about COMPARATIVES. That is where you are straying. You are also splitting hairs about dollars. Go ahead and tell my Bank of America that an electronic overdraft doesn't exist. It's a negative and they most assuredly WILL say it's very real and will get their "imaginary" "E" dollars back.

Like I said...you are trying to isolate this "talent" thing all by itself..apparently just for the sake of argument. I dig. But that was not the point of the original comment in question.

I'm not struggling at all...I know full well what the OP from WAY back meant. Isn't that what we should focus on? The intent? Seems more meaningful than deconstructing word by word. If I were to compare my drumming skills to Neil Peart..I ASSURE you...I would be less than zero. If you must...we'll assume it's a metaphorical comparison...but a very accurate one.

There's a REASON "negative" exists...in both common language and indeed in math. For example..spending so much time on this issue has been more of a negative for me than a positive...however I admit it's been a good exercise, in a certain regard.

Until next time...have a great day.

 

[OmerV]

But...we aren't talking about one single thing. We are talking about COMPARATIVES. That is where you are straying. You are also splitting hairs about dollars. Go ahead and tell my Bank of America that an electronic overdraft doesn't exist. It's a negative and they most assuredly WILL say it's very real and will get their "imaginary" "E" dollars back.

Like I said...you are trying to isolate this "talent" thing all by itself..apparently just for the sake of argument. I dig. But that was not the point of the original comment in question.

I'm not struggling at all...I know full well what the OP from WAY back meant. Isn't that what we should focus on? The intent? Seems more meaningful than deconstructing word by word. If I were to compare my drumming skills to Neil Peart..I ASSURE you...I would be less than zero. If you must...we'll assume it's a metaphorical comparison...but a very accurate one.

There's a REASON "negative" exists...in both common language and indeed in math. For example..spending so much time on this issue has been more of a negative for me than a positive...however I admit it's been a good exercise, in a certain regard.

Until next time...have a great day.

Okay, let's pretend for a minute the term "comparison" was not used in this thread in relation to the talent of the two players ….

In fact, let's go back to the original comment that started this, which was that Dak and Mahomes have less than nothing in common.

Tell me what would be less in common than nothing in common.

Of course, they both play QB in the NFL, both passed for over 4,000 yards this year. Both played football in college. Both have been Pr-Bowl players. Both have been in the playoffs. Hell, the truth is even though Mahomes is clearly the better player, there still is a lot they have in common.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I almost complied to your request, but I reminded myself that I do not see the value in breaking it down that hard.
The only thing I can say is..what is the opposite of a positive? A negative. How about a pro? A con.

When scouts break down a potential player....do they not talk about positives and negatives? Often labeled "pros and cons" or "strengths and weaknesses". Essentially all the same thing. Yet here we sit...nitpicking about it.

 

[OmerV]

I almost complied to your request, but I reminded myself that I do not see the value in breaking it down that hard.
The only thing I can say is..what is the opposite of a positive? A negative. How about a pro? A con.

When scouts break down a potential player....do they not talk about positives and negatives? Often labeled "pros and cons" or "strengths and weaknesses". Essentially all the same thing. Yet here we sit...nitpicking about it.

So, you are going to just talk generalizations that don't apply to the topic instead of answer a question that goes directly to the topic. If you can't speak to the topic you aren't making a point.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

So, you are going to just talk generalizations that don't apply to the topic instead of answer a question that goes directly to the topic. If you can't speak to the topic you aren't making a point.

That's fine you feel that way...but I think I've surely made my point of view well-known. I won't let the likes of you dictate to who and what and how I reply, you can bet the farm on that.

 

[Blake]

Romo was the consummate choker. There will never be another like him.

 

[cern]

I made that one about light because I work with light. I operate spectrophotometers, specifically though lenses like welding filters. We have to measure "light" (including UV and IR as well as visible) to 6 decimal places. The machines have trouble that far out, and often give us a negative value when it runs its calc programs. We make fun of it.

Having said that...the universe is a strange and wonderful place. The thought of "negative light" intrigues me.

I was thinking you meant actual negative light as in Classical electrodynamics which says negative frequency modes are impossible . Or quantum electrodynamics which suggest the possibility of negative photons though highly unlikely.