gkekoa
Well-Known Member
Super Bowls as a measure of greatness is a farce. Eli Manning has two rings, Jeff Hostetler one, Trent Dilfer has one, Joe Flacco has one, and so does Nick Foles.
Incorrect.
Both Brunell and Johnson had very good seasons in Washington.
check the stats.
Theisman 83 comparable to...
Brunell 2005 and
brad Johnson 1999
Brunell
Mark Brunell Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com
Checkout the latest stats for Mark Brunell. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, college, draft, and more on Pro-football-reference.com.www.pro-football-reference.com
Brad Johnson
Brad Johnson Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com
Checkout the latest stats for Brad Johnson. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, college, draft, and more on Pro-football-reference.com.www.pro-football-reference.com
joe theisman stats
Joe Theismann Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com
Checkout the latest stats for Joe Theismann. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, college, draft, and more on Pro-football-reference.com.www.pro-football-reference.com
Super Bowls as a measure of greatness is a farce. Eli Manning has two rings, Jeff Hostetler one, Trent Dilfer has one, Joe Flacco has one, and so does Nick Foles.
Nope one season wonders
You know... I've never understood that "cake" idiomatic proverb. It literally means keeping (having) your cake and eating it too! What in the name of goodness are you supposed to do with your cake, if not eat it.? Perhaps it's a thing that I'm unaware of, but who, ( besides a bride) keeps a cake? Even then, a bride eventually consumes that leftover cake or throws it out.This is true...but of course the caveat is only because Bruce and our front office...completely screwed the pooch with competency, wanting to have their cake and eat it too, with Cuz’ contract. We could have had him at a very reasonable price, all things considered. And well before the double franchise tag nonsense.
That said, agree that it is water over the bridge at this point. But let us ‘not forget history, lest we are doomed to repeat it’.
I think that is likely where Sportster and Dad are coming from...and in this, I do not think they are wrong.
I think it will be interesting to see if Eli makes the HOF. Not saying he shouldn't be there, just guessing some will debate whether he deserves it.
Brunell career stats are good, his time in Washington wasn't.
You know... I've never understood that "cake" idiomatic proverb. It literally means keeping (having) your cake and eating it too! What in the name of goodness are you supposed to do with your cake, if not eat it.? Perhaps it's a thing that I'm unaware of, but who, ( besides a bride) keeps a cake? Even then, a bride eventually consumes that leftover cake or throws it out.
Sonny doesn't have one and he was a great player, Marino too!Super Bowls as a measure of greatness is a farce. Eli Manning has two rings, Jeff Hostetler one, Trent Dilfer has one, Joe Flacco has one, and so does Nick Foles.
You know... I've never understood that "cake" idiomatic proverb. It literally means keeping (having) your cake and eating it too! What in the name of goodness are you supposed to do with your cake, if not eat it.? Perhaps it's a thing that I'm unaware of, but who, ( besides a bride) keeps a cake? Even then, a bride eventually consumes that leftover cake or throws it out.
I’ll always love Brunell and Santana for the gift of the Monday Night Miracle which literally had me jumping up and down on my futon after midnite...long after most of my friends had turned the game off. IIRC, it was a ring of honor ceremony night with Aikman and the trio...or some such, and they were being honored by Dallas. LOL! Still brings a smile!My case against Eli making the HOF is that he was an interception machine but we'll see.
Brunell put up some great numbers with the Jaguars but we got him on the downside of his career.
Let me ‘edumecate’ you both here.This cake thing is going to require some more forward thinking because right now I'm agreeing with you.
Yep, no doubt about any of this but "having" such a thing automatically elicits the question, "what am I to do with this?' It's clear to me what the original intent was but thoughtful humans generally consider what's being said to them. In that vein, it is impossible to NOT have (possess) a thing and then consume it. BTW: with respect to Heywood's quote: “Would yee both eat your cake, and have your cake? the answer is Absolutely!! (at the same time). Now, Plautus presents a slightly different question.. “If you spend a thing you cannot have it”. that gives rise to a proper response..."obviously!" (because then I would have another thing.)I’ll always love Brunell and Santana for the gift of the Monday Night Miracle which literally had me jumping up and down on my futon after midnite...long after most of my friends had turned the game off. IIRC, it was a ring of honor ceremony night with Aikman and the trio...or some such, and they were being honored by Dallas. LOL! Still brings a smile!
Let me ‘edumecate’ you both here.
It’s about word usage and meaning that no longer is used in today’s speech...idiomatic, like many fun but useless phrases in English that I think were kept to annoy the hell out of non native English speakers
I’ve worked with Adult Literacy programs in a few places I’ve lived...and explains idiomatic phrases is often hilarious!!!
Eat Your Cake and Have It Too
So let’s say you finally have some cake. Well, the old proverb goes, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.’ So now you’ve got to deal with whether or not you’re allowed to eat that cake. This confusion comes from interpreting the ‘having’ and ‘eating’ of cake as sequential acts rather than concurrent ones. In contemporary English we say, ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too’. But when we phrase it like this, it makes people think first you have the cake, and then you eat the cake. That’s not asking too much is it?
Well, in early accounts the phrase was reversed. The Proverbs of John Heywood, first published in 1598, includes one of the earliest uses in English. Heywood’s quote reads, “Would yee both eat your cake, and have your cake?” 2 This implies that once you have eaten the cake, you can no longer possess the cake. It’s gone.
And there are even earlier attributions in other languages. The Roman playwright Plautus wrote, “Non tibi illud apparere si sumas potest” in 194 BC. In English that would read, “If you spend a thing you cannot have it”.
Ha! Semantics my friend! Agree to disagree! CheersYep, no doubt about any of this but "having" such a thing automatically elicits the question, "what am I to do with this?' It's clear to me what the original intent was but thoughtful humans generally consider what's being said to them. In that vein, it is impossible to NOT have (possess) a thing and then consume it. BTW: with respect to Heywood's quote: “Would yee both eat your cake, and have your cake? the answer is Absolutely!! (at the same time). Now, Plautus presents a slightly different question.. “If you spend a thing you cannot have it”. that gives rise to a proper response..."obviously!" (because then I would have another thing.)
I’ll always love Brunell and Santana for the gift of the Monday Night Miracle which literally had me jumping up and down on my futon after midnite...long after most of my friends had turned the game off. IIRC, it was a ring of honor ceremony night with Aikman and the trio...or some such, and they were being honored by Dallas. LOL! Still brings a smile!
Let me ‘edumecate’ you both here.
It’s about word usage and meaning that no longer is used in today’s speech...idiomatic, like many fun but useless phrases in English that I think were kept to annoy the hell out of non native English speakers
I’ve worked with Adult Literacy programs in a few places I’ve lived...and explains idiomatic phrases is often hilarious!!!
Eat Your Cake and Have It Too
So let’s say you finally have some cake. Well, the old proverb goes, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.’ So now you’ve got to deal with whether or not you’re allowed to eat that cake. This confusion comes from interpreting the ‘having’ and ‘eating’ of cake as sequential acts rather than concurrent ones. In contemporary English we say, ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too’. But when we phrase it like this, it makes people think first you have the cake, and then you eat the cake. That’s not asking too much is it?
Well, in early accounts the phrase was reversed. The Proverbs of John Heywood, first published in 1598, includes one of the earliest uses in English. Heywood’s quote reads, “Would yee both eat your cake, and have your cake?” 2 This implies that once you have eaten the cake, you can no longer possess the cake. It’s gone.
And there are even earlier attributions in other languages. The Roman playwright Plautus wrote, “Non tibi illud apparere si sumas potest” in 194 BC. In English that would read, “If you spend a thing you cannot have it”.
i wonder why you can have your pie and eat it too but not cake ? but you divide the pie but not the cake ? and what about pie charts but no cakes ones ? bastards