Seymour
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 7,459
- Reaction score
- 22
Shouldn't "a winner" have at least 1 playoff win under his belt? :roll:
SoulfishHawk":acj2a4su said:Dak has been clutch? when?
quadsas":2jgm77j3 said:Edit: and anyone who understands what it means to WIN in sports would agree that Manning is a massive loser. Winning 12 games in regular season every year is not an indication of a winner lmao.
quadsas":2jgm77j3 said:A winner is a guy like Wilson, or to give the best example, Brady. Someone who would never ever give up, completely inspire the whole team and make THE plays. aka something Peyton has never been able to do, something Dak, when given a chance, hasn't been able to do. If you think winning 12 games in regular season and getting regularly bounced in playoffs is 'winning' then your perception of what matters in sports (aka actual wins, the championships) is flawed. Guys like Kobe, Jordan, Brady, etc. have the mentality of winning the game at any cost, not just saying 'oh i hate losing, i want to win'. For them it's natural, they have the clutch gene, so does Wilson. Dak hasn't shown that yet.
quadsas":262qtu0s said:Sgt. Largent":262qtu0s said:I would quite put Prescott in the same rarefied air as Russell, but IMO he is 2b next to Mahomes and Watson's 2a next to Russell as guys in the league who have that "it" factor.
He and Russell are very similar in that they can get into a very dangerous rhythm once they get going. Obviously Russell throws a better deep ball, but Prescott can be equally as deadly running around making plays............as we saw last week to win the game in NY.
IMO he IS the wildcard factor for this game. If he's his normal good but not great self with a pick or two, then we win. But if he can get into rhythm early and make some plays opening up the run game for Zeek, could spell trouble for us.
I am not talking about skillset. I am talking about winning. As in Tom Brady winning compared to Peyton Manning winning. Dak has played one playoff game. And #1 seed. Lost. As far as I know the only thing you qualify with a record like that is as a loser
MontanaHawk05":4zwazpdv said:quadsas":4zwazpdv said:Edit: and anyone who understands what it means to WIN in sports would agree that Manning is a massive loser. Winning 12 games in regular season every year is not an indication of a winner lmao.
quadsas":4zwazpdv said:A winner is a guy like Wilson, or to give the best example, Brady. Someone who would never ever give up, completely inspire the whole team and make THE plays. aka something Peyton has never been able to do, something Dak, when given a chance, hasn't been able to do. If you think winning 12 games in regular season and getting regularly bounced in playoffs is 'winning' then your perception of what matters in sports (aka actual wins, the championships) is flawed. Guys like Kobe, Jordan, Brady, etc. have the mentality of winning the game at any cost, not just saying 'oh i hate losing, i want to win'. For them it's natural, they have the clutch gene, so does Wilson. Dak hasn't shown that yet.
You're grossly appealing to intangibles.
Also, if your standard of winning is getting a lot of titles, then by your own definitions, Wilson isn't a winner. He's got one Super Bowl ring; Brady has five. Peyton has two.
SoulfishHawk":23pxqzbb said:Mad? Not at all, just my opinion that he's an average QB, nothing more. Has nothing to do with him being on the Cowboys, I've just never been that impressed. When he's on, he's pretty good, when he's bad, he's very bad.
Why would someone be mad? He's average
SoulfishHawk":2rikso3h said:Not even, plenty of us have respect for other teams. No need to assume otherwise. The Hawks are far from the best team in the league, big deal. Now if we are talking about Zeke, that guy is a flat out baller.
Not being impressed by Dak has ZERO to do with the fact that he's playing the Cowboys, I've never been that impressed.
Seymour":25dlg9hk said:MontanaHawk05":25dlg9hk said:You're grossly appealing to intangibles.
Also, if your standard of winning is getting a lot of titles, then by your own definitions, Wilson isn't a winner. He's got one Super Bowl ring; Brady has five. Peyton has two.
Tom Brady has played 19 years.
Peyton Manning has played 18 years.
Russell Wilson has played 7 years.
Ridiculous comparison. :roll:
SoulfishHawk":1cg1wm69 said:Fair enough, when he wins a playoff game, I'll likely change my view a little bit. But not being impressed by a guy equals butt hurt? Ok then.......
Isn't a message board about opinions? So if we are not impressed with every player we go against, we are somehow butt hurt and/or it's automatically them "dissing" the Hawks? Nah
There are quite a few QB's in the league that are better than Dak. Shoot, I know a lot of Cowboy fans, very few of them are happy with Dak as their QB. More often they are wondering which Dak will show up, let alone if he'll ever be a clutch big game QB. Of course, coming from Dallas, the standard is pretty high after you have guys like Staubach and Aikman in the past......
Seahawk Sailor":3bt8r50h said:Seymour":3bt8r50h said:MontanaHawk05":3bt8r50h said:You're grossly appealing to intangibles.
Also, if your standard of winning is getting a lot of titles, then by your own definitions, Wilson isn't a winner. He's got one Super Bowl ring; Brady has five. Peyton has two.
Tom Brady has played 19 years.
Peyton Manning has played 18 years.
Russell Wilson has played 7 years.
Ridiculous comparison. :roll:
5 for 19 = one every 3.8 years
2 for 18 = one every 9 years
1 for 7 = one every 7 years
According to this logic, Wilson is a bit better than Manning, but only about half as good as Brady. That's how this stuff works, right?
I'm a cowboys fan and I signed up to clear up a few things in regards to Dak.Seymour":2a0j8dtp said:Shouldn't "a winner" have at least 1 playoff win under his belt? :roll: