|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| How strange it is, though, that Shurmur’s Vikings scored only seven points on the Eagles Sunday and yet he is about to replace McAdoo, whose 3-13 Giants were one of the few clubs to move the ball well against Schwartz’s D — 415 yards and 24 points in Week 3, then 504 yards and 29 points after McAdoo got fired. |
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
382 is 55% more than 246.
Quote:
..and I paraphrase:
"My source that told me Patricia wanted the Giants and he was their first choice, confirmed to me that this is correct. Patricia turned it down due to some disfunction in the organization, and how Shurmur is their 3rd choice and should be questioned from the outset."
Gee Gary, your source that turned out to be wrong confirmed the same incorrect information as being correct?
Others have reported Patricia decided he did not want to deal with the NY media as it does not fit his personality...and oh, by the way, his good friend is the GM of the Lions. Let's just not let facts get in the way.
Typical Meyers, He gets proven wrong on his first scope so he then makes up some BS story again to cover his ass and make it look like he was actually right.
Such a fucking hack
"Scoop" not scope
Leonard is a clown.
And anybody who uses single game results to evaluate a coach is an idiot.
REALLY? 7 points.?
He proved he is just another "coordinator". NO originality, creativity or desire.
Looks like Giants need to wait until after Super Bowl
Pat Leonard is a big bitch.
REALLY? 7 points.?
He proved he is just another "coordinator". NO originality, creativity or desire.
Looks like Giants need to wait until after Super Bowl
Again, only an idiot evaluates a coach based on one game.
They over paid
Bottom line, they do not know enough about the game to ask new/innovative questions that are good football X's and O's type of questions.
I can guarantee you this. If I was a beat writer, I would not ask a single question that was tied to team "drama". During the week when Geno was going to start vs Eli... when everyone else was asking the questions about "when did you tell Eli?" "what was Eli's reaction?". My questions would have been about how the offensive game was going to be called with Geno. Will we throw in a few plays that uses Geno's mobility? etc etc
Coaches are pretty uptight about tipping their hand that way, so all the writers are left with is team drama.
Quote:
If Giants were on fence with Shurmur, yesterday would have knocked him off.
REALLY? 7 points.?
He proved he is just another "coordinator". NO originality, creativity or desire.
Looks like Giants need to wait until after Super Bowl
Again, only an idiot evaluates a coach based on one game.
Never heard of him before 2 months ago
What I an saying is - Shurmur has not exactly set the NFL on fire, Can anyone in here name me a "Shurmur" WOW moment?
He seems to be an adequate OC but Didn't Giants just fire that guy?
came up small in his big moment
Quote:
In comment 13801080 Giantslifer said:
Quote:
If Giants were on fence with Shurmur, yesterday would have knocked him off.
REALLY? 7 points.?
He proved he is just another "coordinator". NO originality, creativity or desire.
Looks like Giants need to wait until after Super Bowl
Again, only an idiot evaluates a coach based on one game.
Never heard of him before 2 months ago
What I an saying is - Shurmur has not exactly set the NFL on fire, Can anyone in here name me a "Shurmur" WOW moment?
He seems to be an adequate OC but Didn't Giants just fire that guy?
came up small in his big moment
This can't be a serious post! All the trolls are coming out! WTF
Being proud of being a dumbass by not knowing somebody is a fantastic look.
Never heard of him before 2 months ago
What I an saying is - Shurmur has not exactly set the NFL on fire, Can anyone in here name me a "Shurmur" WOW moment?
He seems to be an adequate OC but Didn't Giants just fire that guy?
came up small in his big moment
You never heard of Pat Shurmer until 2 months ago? With all due respect, if you don’t know a guy who was an NFL HC for 2years, you don’t follow it all that closely.
As far as accomplishments, I’d say winning 13 games and getting to the NFCCG with a journeyman QB is quite an accomplishment, but what do I know?
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Quote:
Never heard of him before 2 months ago
What I an saying is - Shurmur has not exactly set the NFL on fire, Can anyone in here name me a "Shurmur" WOW moment?
He seems to be an adequate OC but Didn't Giants just fire that guy?
came up small in his big moment
You never heard of Pat Shurmer until 2 months ago? With all due respect, if you don’t know a guy who was an NFL HC for 2years, you don’t follow it all that closely.
As far as accomplishments, I’d say winning 13 games and getting to the NFCCG with a journeyman QB is quite an accomplishment, but what do I know?
How could I possibly be this ignorant.
To not know who coached the Browns 4-5 years ago. To not know a assistant NFL coach who has never really set himself apart from any other assistant coach.
Yes,the Vikings went 13-3, they had a top 3? defense. Played in an extremely weak division.
He (Vikings) played good Philly team and scored 7 points. Is this the next offensive genius the Giants want?
I'm not saying he won't be a good coach - but what is his greatest NFL achievement?
He's guy. maybe yes maybe no. But most likely a journeyman.
Perhaps the geniuses in this room can predict his future
Seriously, you didn't know a guy was a head coach and somehow that reflects poorly on him?
How about the fact that you're a moron and damn happy to be one?
Your posts are a joke and you should be embarrassed.
I think we can all forgive him for his HC stint in Cleveland because, well, it was Cleveland, but he did help journeyman Colt McCoy have his best year as a pro.
In his 2 years as OC in Philly, he ran the 3rd and 5th ranked offenses in the NFL in both yards and points, and Nick Foles had his best year as a pro (notice a trend?) with 27 TD’s and only 2 Int’s. In Minny, he dealt with a revolving door of QB’s and helped get to 13 wins with Case Fucking Keenum as his QB, while ranking 10th in yards and points (higher than Philly, mind you).
It is OK to not know who someone is, but to project his success or failure off of the results of one game is simply fucking stupid.
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
I sure hope you work well with people at least.
BTW. This will go over your head but here's the proof:
Let's call 382, X.
You're basically implying:
1.35(0.65X)=X
0.8775X=X
Quote:
In comment 13801872 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
In what world is that correct?
Is 382 not 100% of what Minnesota scored? 246 is 65% of that whole number. 382 (100%) less 246 (65%) leaves you 35%.
I’ll take it a step further and use the 136. Using your 136 difference, you need to divide that by the 100% number, not the 246. 136/382=.35
Quote:
In comment 13801900 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801872 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
In what world is that correct?
Is 382 not 100% of what Minnesota scored? 246 is 65% of that whole number. 382 (100%) less 246 (65%) leaves you 35%.
I’ll take it a step further and use the 136. Using your 136 difference, you need to divide that by the 100% number, not the 246. 136/382=.35
Please tell me you're not someone that works with numbers for a living.
Quote:
In comment 13801927 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13801900 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801872 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
In what world is that correct?
Is 382 not 100% of what Minnesota scored? 246 is 65% of that whole number. 382 (100%) less 246 (65%) leaves you 35%.
I’ll take it a step further and use the 136. Using your 136 difference, you need to divide that by the 100% number, not the 246. 136/382=.35
Please tell me you're not someone that works with numbers for a living.
Actually yes I am.
Again how am I wrong here?
Everything is based off the Minnesota total (382), no?
382-246=136
136/382=.35
Minnesota scored 35% more points than the NYG.
Quote:
In comment 13801953 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801927 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13801900 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801872 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
In what world is that correct?
Is 382 not 100% of what Minnesota scored? 246 is 65% of that whole number. 382 (100%) less 246 (65%) leaves you 35%.
I’ll take it a step further and use the 136. Using your 136 difference, you need to divide that by the 100% number, not the 246. 136/382=.35
Please tell me you're not someone that works with numbers for a living.
Actually yes I am.
Again how am I wrong here?
Everything is based off the Minnesota total (382), no?
382-246=136
136/382=.35
Minnesota scored 35% more points than the NYG.
What these 2 guys are doing is taking the 136 and dividing by 246 to get .55. That’s fundamentally wrong. We are basing it off the Minnesota total, which is the 382.
The 246 is the base in which the calculation is based off of.
Quote:
In comment 13801900 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801872 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13801626 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 13800695 The_Boss said:
Quote:
In comment 13800611 giants#1 said:
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Not only do you post shit, you can't do math.. 382 is 55% more than 246. Damn man, 1/2 of 246 is 123, add 123 to 246 and get 369... 35% is 332.
Wrong. I was on the right path but I inverted the numbers. It’s actually 65%. I attached the Internet calculator for you. You need to go with the premise that 382 equals 100%. 246 divided by 382 is 65. Link - ( New Window )
Actually upon further review, I’m 100% correct. If 246 is 65% of 382 then 382 is 35% more than 246 if you correctly presume 382 is 100% of what the Vikings scored.
Boom!
Nice try.
That's not how you calculate it. Subtract 246 from 382 (which leaves you with 136) and then divide 136 by 246, which is .553. That's what makes it a percentage "more than" 246, because 246 remains your base value throughout the calculation. And the difference between 382 and 246 is 55% more than 246.
Boom!
Nice try.
In what world is that correct?
Is 382 not 100% of what Minnesota scored? 246 is 65% of that whole number. 382 (100%) less 246 (65%) leaves you 35%.
I’ll take it a step further and use the 136. Using your 136 difference, you need to divide that by the 100% number, not the 246. 136/382=.35
Because 136 is 35% OF 382 and 246 is 65% of 382, 382 is 55% MORE than 246.
More than and of are two different things.
246 is 65% of 382, or 246/382=0.65
382 is 55% more than 246 is (382/246)-1=0.55
Different way of calculating completely different things. One is measure a percentage of a number and one is measuring the increase from one number to another.
The 246 is the base in which the calculation is based off of.
The base is the Minnesota point total.
Sorry boys. I have an economic mba degree. I stand by what I’m asserting whole heartedly 100%. Type into your browser “246 is what percentage of 382”. Google will spit out 65%. The difference is 35%.
Quote:
Please stop, you are making yourself look foolish with each post.
The 246 is the base in which the calculation is based off of.
The base is the Minnesota point total.
Sorry boys. I have an economic mba degree. I stand by what I’m asserting whole heartedly 100%. Type into your browser “246 is what percentage of 382”. Google will spit out 65%. The difference is 35%.
Was it from clown college?
Especially the MBA brag.
Holy fucking failballs!!!
Props on admitting your error.
Quote:
the Giants 246 pts. That's 50% more points than the Giants...
And before we blame injuries, the Giants still only scored 310 pts last season, which is 4.5 pts/game less than the Vikes this year.
It’s not 50% more. It’s more like 35%
Apparently, you never made it through 4th grade math. It's a little over 50% more
Quote:
Please stop, you are making yourself look foolish with each post.
The 246 is the base in which the calculation is based off of.
The base is the Minnesota point total.
Sorry boys. I have an economic mba degree. I stand by what I’m asserting whole heartedly 100%. Type into your browser “246 is what percentage of 382”. Google will spit out 65%. The difference is 35%.
You're joking right? Better get your money back that you paid for your degree because you don't know the first thing about elementary school arithmetic. I dare you to print this conversation and take it to work and share it with your coworkers. Come back tomorrow and let us know how it went. Don't blame us when everyone at work realizes that you are an idiot. Or maybe they already know.
246 + 55%