- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How has Brees played in big games?
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:28 pm to clooneyisgod
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:28 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
The irony is that most of you didn't even post here until the mid-way point of this season.
I've been posting since 2005 which lets me know that every one of your post on this thread is just to try and rile up the Saints fans here. If this is what gets you excited, then so be it, but it does just make you look like an ignorant pointless a-hole. I hope you are getting your thrills because everyone is laughing at you not with you.
1
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:28 pm to clooneyisgod
For the record, clooney, I see your point. My friends and I commented several times in the Minnesota game that Drew seemed "off". Was it adrenaline? Was it pressure? In the end, he still made the plays when it counted. I'm much more concerned about some of our receivers inability to make a "clean" catch in clutch situations.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:31 pm to TIGERSby10
quote:
every one of your post on this thread is just to try and rile up the Saints fans here.
Not really. Just wanted to discuss Brees' play the last few years, which has been lights outs 90% of the time.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:33 pm to Les Cajones
quote:
For the record, clooney, I see your point. My friends and I commented several times in the Minnesota game that Drew seemed "off".
Exactly. We've been talking about this all week. Obviously, the speculation that he was hurt just added to the talk.
quote:
I'm much more concerned about some of our receivers inability to make a "clean" catch in clutch situations.
Agreed. Between Colston's drops and Meachem questionable catch, I'd like to see a few more clean catches when it counts.
All of that being said, I have a feeling the offense is going to be really sharp next Sunday. I think they're due.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:34 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
Give me a break man. We're just talking here. This isn't a thesis. Cut the crap.
I'll take that as an admittance that you are incapable of presenting a valid point to argue.
You are also telling me that in 196 words, not including the edit or topic line, that you cannot and now will not be able to supply a proper point to provide a focused and central verbal nervous center to which we can argue the point that you now most obviously cannot produce. I don't know how to help someone that cannot simply produce one intelligible area to name as a focal point.
What is the reasoning behind this? Can you? Are you capable? Do you feel this is over your intelligence level, or under it? You are a confusing mutinous being, albeit murky in what comments you're capable of producing. Either be clear, or you have a chaotic fiasco that this thread has turned out to be.
Be precise, be clear, and be focused. It certainly seems to serve most human beings well. I would expect nothing less than someone with your scholastic measurements.
This post was edited on 1/31/10 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:37 pm to flybynight
quote:
I would expect nothing less than someone with your scholastic measurements.
After all, he is an attorney.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:39 pm to flybynight
quote:
I'll take that as an admittance that you are incapable of presenting a valid point to argue
This is message board hack material.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:42 pm to flybynight
Also, assuming that your point is having the want (to use a Lessism) of a discussion board to convince you that you are wrong of your summation related to the man's performance. I'm also going to assume that your summation is that of a falloff of performance when facing teams in "big" games.
LINK
I highly suggest you take a look at this link, and decide for yourself, as you do not need a discussion board and the opinions of others as a necessity for independent thought. Also, I would highly suggest adding this year's playoff statistics to this summarization.
LINK
I highly suggest you take a look at this link, and decide for yourself, as you do not need a discussion board and the opinions of others as a necessity for independent thought. Also, I would highly suggest adding this year's playoff statistics to this summarization.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:45 pm to flybynight
quote:
do not need a discussion board and the opinions of others as a necessity for independent thought
Then why read at all?
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:45 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
This is message board hack material.
If this is a rebuttal, it is, again, unfocused and unclear. Please be focused.Technically, the term as used in American slang for "hack" doesn't constitute proper use here, as "hackneyed" would be a more intelligent choice. What I stated was not a joke, therefore you cannot simply state that it's "hack" material. The term, as you've used it, is inconsistent with the adjective state. It is, of course, regularly used as a noun.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:47 pm to flybynight
quote:
What I stated was not a joke, therefore you cannot simply state that it's "hack" material. The term, as you've used it, is inconsistent with the adjective state. It is, of course, regularly used as a noun
Would you be more comfortable with the term "deusch?"
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:48 pm to flybynight
flybynight, that isnt the type of "big games" clooney is referencing.
"Output includes all games that meet at least one of the following criteria: 300+ yards passing, 100+ yards rushing, 100+ yards receiving, or 4+ passing touchdowns."
"Output includes all games that meet at least one of the following criteria: 300+ yards passing, 100+ yards rushing, 100+ yards receiving, or 4+ passing touchdowns."
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:50 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
Then why read at all?
This is, of course, still unfocused and unclear. There is more on a discussion board than to just read....individuals come here as a way to communicate in a group setting with others. If you cannot clearly communicate, is increasingly difficult to come by a system to where this said communication is possible. The means try to justify the means, yet you continue to post incoherent material. You also choose to quote part of a sentence....is this normal?
Again, "messy" certainly seems as the proper applicable term to use in this situation. I'm still awaiting a proper point to argue, as you have not provided one at this point. As to your query, it would serve as a certain type of irony that to post and quote something as a reply, you would have to read and comprehend the meaning of the words located in the sentence structure before responding. Usually humans do this with some sort of structure, however you continue to exacerbate whatever condition prohibits you from using the frontal lobe.
I sincerely await your next psychological breakdown.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:52 pm to flybynight
quote:
Would you be more comfortable with the term "deusch?"
This is, of course, the incorrect form of the term "douche". I appreciate the increased focus, yet again you apparently confuse the spelling of a fairly common noun used also as a derogatory term in American slang.
For an instant, I did believe that you were going to refer to me as Dutch, which would have been a partially correct response.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:53 pm to clooneyisgod
the other day on NFL net they had his stats vs SB winning qbs this year and he was completing nearly 70% with 15 or 16 tds and no Ints.... it was against Brady, Manning, Favre, Warner and one other I believe
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:53 pm to TortiousTiger
quote:
flybynight, that isnt the type of "big games" clooney is referencing. "Output includes all games that meet at least one of the following criteria: 300+ yards passing, 100+ yards rushing, 100+ yards receiving, or 4+ passing touchdowns."
Thanks Tiger. I do realize what type of big game he's talking about, but these academia types, you have to talk to them differently :)
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:55 pm to St Augustine
quote:
the other day on NFL net they had his stats vs SB winning qbs this year and he was completing nearly 70% with 15 or 16 tds and no Ints.... it was against Brady, Manning, Favre, Warner and one other I believe
His numbers have been sick all year. And it seems like he's had a ton of 3-4 touchdown games. I believe we're going to see the Drew Brees from the New England game on Sunday. Again, he's due for a monster game.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:55 pm to St Augustine
quote:
the other day on NFL net they had his stats vs SB winning qbs this year and he was completing nearly 70% with 15 or 16 tds and no Ints.... it was against Brady, Manning, Favre, Warner and one other I believe
You may have to watch out augustine...clooney speaks a different language than most of us common folk :)
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:57 pm to clooneyisgod
Brees vs Superbowl winning QBs this year:
81/116, 1,184 Yards, 15 TDs, 0 INTs, 142.4 Rating
Brees career playoff stats:
118/186 1360 11 TDs, 2 INTs, 101 rating
81/116, 1,184 Yards, 15 TDs, 0 INTs, 142.4 Rating
Brees career playoff stats:
118/186 1360 11 TDs, 2 INTs, 101 rating
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:57 pm to flybynight
quote:
His numbers have been sick all year. And it seems like he's had a ton of 3-4 touchdown games. I believe we're going to see the Drew Brees from the New England game on Sunday. Again, he's due for a monster game.
So then the premise of Mr. Drew Brees as a "monster' player in a "big" game should be concrete, no? Simply on the basis of being "due"? Again, confusing banter.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News