Sanchez doesn't deserve the bandwidth on this site. Only starting NFL QBs should be talked about.
Sanchez is a punch line.
That's precisely the issue. When one wants desperately to believe something, the probability associated with the rule is ignored, and the exception to the rule is thought to represent the greater probability.Searching for exceptions is always the hilarity on sites like this. I have no idea how it holds any value at all. Talk about a flawed value system. There will be a pronouncement and posters on the other end of the theme scramble for a deflective exception. Then as soon as they find it, for some reason the conversation stops, as if the initial theme lost all value. This is hardly relegated to this site alone. I've had to tackle the happy adjustment idiocy on major golf sites also. The Tiger Woods fans hate me on golfwrx when I attack all their nonsense that Tiger is playing in an awesome era, and that he would have won 25 to 40 majors in Nicklaus' era.
Exceptions mean nothing compared to the rule. As shouright has emphasized, nothing is 100%. The laziest and least provocative posters scramble for exceptions.
In Tannehill's case, a guy with that type of background and performance chart has an opportunity to be great, to improve significantly under Lazor or someone else. Nothing is absolute. My ongoing annoyance is the lack of understanding toward the burden of that type of projection. It's not 50% likelihood or anything close to that. The tape lies all the time when it is attached to someone with the background of Tannehill, a guy who has never been great and wasn't even playing his current position a few years ago. That's not a positive, as so many have tried to pretend. He was campaigning for the role and was rejected, while already into his 20s. He didn't become the starting quarterback at Texas A&M until he was nearly 22 and a half years old. Manziel is departing Texas A&M with a Heisman Trophy after playing his last college game barely beyond his 21st birthday. I don't have to think for 5 seconds before deciding which background has greater likelihood of stardom.
You've got to know I'm chuckling while typing this, knowing darn well someone is desperate to find an exception, a quarterback who didn't become a starter until Tannehill's age or later, and then prospered in the NFL. That's the way that type thinks. Nothing is going to convince them how worthless it is.
Searching for exceptions is always the hilarity on sites like this. I have no idea how it holds any value at all. Talk about a flawed value system. There will be a pronouncement and posters on the other end of the theme scramble for a deflective exception. Then as soon as they find it, for some reason the conversation stops, as if the initial theme lost all value. This is hardly relegated to this site alone. I've had to tackle the happy adjustment idiocy on major golf sites also. The Tiger Woods fans hate me on golfwrx when I attack all their nonsense that Tiger is playing in an awesome era, and that he would have won 25 to 40 majors in Nicklaus' era.
Exceptions mean nothing compared to the rule. As shouright has emphasized, nothing is 100%. The laziest and least provocative posters scramble for exceptions.
In Tannehill's case, a guy with that type of background and performance chart has an opportunity to be great, to improve significantly under Lazor or someone else. Nothing is absolute. My ongoing annoyance is the lack of understanding toward the burden of that type of projection. It's not 50% likelihood or anything close to that. The tape lies all the time when it is attached to someone with the background of Tannehill, a guy who has never been great and wasn't even playing his current position a few years ago. That's not a positive, as so many have tried to pretend. He was campaigning for the role and was rejected, while already into his 20s. He didn't become the starting quarterback at Texas A&M until he was nearly 22 and a half years old. Manziel is departing Texas A&M with a Heisman Trophy after playing his last college game barely beyond his 21st birthday. I don't have to think for 5 seconds before deciding which background has greater likelihood of stardom.
You've got to know I'm chuckling while typing this, knowing darn well someone is desperate to find an exception, a quarterback who didn't become a starter until Tannehill's age or later, and then prospered in the NFL. That's the way that type thinks. Nothing is going to convince them how worthless it is.
It has a Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_fumble
It's anniversary was celebrated on nfl.com
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000286025/One-year-anniversary-of-the-butt-fumble
Someone turned into a silent movie
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/22597141/video-the-mark-buttfumble-buttfumble-is-now-a-silent-film
ESPN aired a Sports Science segment about it
http://extramustard.si.com/2013/09/07/espn-studies-the-mark-buttfumble-butt-fumble-on-sport-science-and-then-retires-it/
It was the Not Top 10 champion for 40 weeks. They were forced to retired it.
:sidelol:
Ah buttfumble, the gift that keeps on giving.....
would be backup ....
