52-80

the better QB should starts

It had to compete with the Garfield movie.

Yes, it's been observed in multiple playoff simulation that the 5 might be a better spot than the 1. In rd2, the 5 will play the bye-winner of a lesser conference, say Miami. the 1 plays some runner up of a stronger conference, so possibly a texas or georgia type team.

"You see, Quinn's problem isn't pocket awareness, it's his inconsistency. Gotcha, haters!"

Vandy beat Alabama and took Missouri to the wire. Its not gonna be a recovery game for him

Sanders played under insane pressure rate. He took 50+ sacks last season and on that same pace this season and still completing 70%+ in spite of it. For a Ewers as a guy supposedly all-world, Heisman leading , draft QB1, its disappointing to even to have be discussing these basic shortcomings in his 3rd starting season.

Better to pretend the armor is not cracked. Its perfect. Ignore the the argument, just dispute the person instead.

Yes, but the root cause of that was getting smacked around at the line of scrimmage. Game was lost due to issues with both OL and DL. Wouldve been nice with more mobile QB who couldve improvised when plays broke down. Or atleast evade a rush.

its happpeninggg

yer our boi blu

12th man baby

very based

hahahahah the students throwing bottles worked.

god is good

You and roy, 2 adult men behaving like Mean Girls on a message board. Much impressed. Wow.

Hoo buddy, have I got some news for you

Post + Avatar: Have you talked to your therapist about this?

I can believe Eberhard was the a car enthusiast. But you have to bridge how being a bigger gearhead translates into being responsible for what Tesla Inc is today. Eberhard 'consulting' with ACP actually was him discovering when they were already converting their battery to li-ion (per ACP President Tom Gage). He had no prior experience attesting to any involvement in auto manufacturing or motor design or such. He last worked making book readers. The technical chops overseeing most of Tesla engineering history was Straubel (#5) and Baglino, both Musk hires. Let me know if I sum your arguments correctly: 1. Eberhard and Tarp are more responsible for Teslas success than Musk 2.Because contribution of their Plan during 4 year tenure supercedes whatever musk contributed in his 21 year tenure 3.The Plan being.. put li-ion in a car, and then make progressively cheaper cars... ? Is that plan particularly unique or groundbreaking? Is that the key to making the #1 selling car in the world, and why havent anybody else successfully followed it? Why arent those 2 being sought after for any other gigs today given the enormity of their idea? Finally, if we're making this argument of genesis, wouldn't you say it's actually AC Propulsion that is responsible for everything Tesla is today? Rolling double-sixes multiple time in a rows gets exponentially harder. Name some of these children of wealth who have done this. Eli is top 10 in career yards and touchdowns. The only 2 guys above him who dont have championships are Marino and Rivers. Without the championships, he would still end up in HOF, just like Rivers will, and like the rest of the T10 are. Are you seriously suggesting his career achievement is luck over competence?

You talk about me in the sneering tone of a schoolgirl. "Ewww I dont know why you guys engage with 5280". And you even post angry reaction emoji when I call it out. So am I supposed to be offended that you, of all people, find me insufferable?

Im not litigating things from page 300. Im citing direct claims made in this thread in the last 4 pages since ive revisited it. Are you able to follow that or do you need direct links?

Nice to have our own schoolmarm in the room. Have you asked for immamacs assistance to help police my posting?

The sheer fact that he is atop multiple successful companies in widely different disciplines had to be attributed to *some* superlative. Whether its smarts, motivation, tenacity, including cunning and luck, and all combinations thereof, its open to arguments of pedantry. But if people reduce it to simply “he asks people to do stuff” or “hes good at marketing (but akin like ptbarnum)”, thats really dumb. If its easy, you do it: ask people to do stuff. Apple is a good tangent because people do argue whether Cook is a good executive or an overpriced beancounter stalling the company. (Read the Apple thread). Ill pull an argumentum ad stockium on this one: if hes horrible, why do the owners keep paying him? Punters opinion have literally zero value. Shareholders opinion puts their money at stake: whos more informed?

I snipped off the section about how you feel about his personal character. Thats a subjective opinion people should share with their pets because theres no debate value, but we can talk about the business history because I think you’re trying to be honest with it. 1. The founders’ hobby and nominal profession and work experience doesnt trumps Musks’ for relevance to the business. They didnt have experience in vehicle or industrial manufacturing, they were tech founders like Musk was. Musk owned a sports cars (McLaren F1), and also expressed interest in commercializing AC Propulsions car. Thats how he got turned onto Tesla in the first place: ACP referred him to Eberhard. 2. Funding is not unique but uh its pretty essential to survival? Moreover this wasn’t a minority stake, like a VC punt on an investment. He bought majority ownership right out of the gate. Not 3 years in a coup or 7 years later when you suggest the company was “rolling”. 3.The fact that the company is 250 months old is not the point. The point is musk headed the ship for 97% of those months as chair/owner/ceo, and the 2 cofounders were completely removed 200 months ago. 4. A plan is a plan until its completed. Do you think theres some hurdle between the plan and achieving it? Through…say….the global financial crisis of 2007? I get your main thesis that “#1 had the idea”. But the totality of the idea as you described is “make cheaper and cheaper cars” — is that their groundbreaking unique idea? did that map out to the actual 3 and y? and is the incantation of “lets make it cheap” more valuable than overseeing bringing the actual manufacturing online through to 1M of cars? 5. Argument wasnt ascribing the Roadster to Musk. Argument was the Roadster is pretty immaterial to what Tesla is today. Thats why its total sale of 2500 was brought up. It had nonvalue in showing that electrics could be cool. Theres lots of electric cars today from dead companies. (Fisker was cool). The car that brought Tesla to prominence was the S. That was penned by a Musk hire (Franz) and engineered by a Musk hire (Rawlinson). The S kept the lights on until the Model 3 made money. 6. The blueprint doesnt guarantee execution. Even after Tesla made EV palatable and prove the business model, subsequent EVs companied died or are dying. Vinfast? Fisker? Faraday? Lucid? Ties back to #4. 7. The low-information guys in this thread also picked up on this great “government fund” thing as a gotcha. I think you know, that loan was given to other car companies (like Nissan and Ford) and in even larger sizes. Tesla paid back the loan in full, before term, whereas the other companies loans might still be outstanding. I love it when they mention the govt money as an indictment! 8. Nope, I didnt trickmath you while claiming that there was reluctance for public investment in the (9-7)=2 years after founding. I meant the 9 years after IPO, 16 years after founding. And in the IPO filing (S-1), they would have laid out details plans and visions and risks. This post-dated all the sales of the Roadsters. It covered the Model S blowing up the internet with drag racing videos. It covered 9 years of public financials giving insights into financials and trends. And yet the investing public, by way of flat stock valuation, did not signal they believed in the future of the company. That is the reason i claim it wasnt *obvious* that the company was rolling or thriving, which contrasts to your claiming that that was inevitable as far back as 2010. It doesnt jive at all.