Originally Posted by tredadda:
She beat Clark? Or did her team beat Clark’s team? Why didn’t the winner of winners have more than one. Again back to my point that rings in team sports are not the only gauge of success. If that was the case then CEH is 100x the RB that Barry Sanders is and Hardman is the same thing in comparison to Randy Moss.
Did Sanders play against Ceh? No. So your point is both dumb and futile. Reese and Clark PLAYED EACHOTHER in a final and Clark lost. End of story. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Did Sanders play against Ceh? No. So your point is both dumb and futile. Reese and Clark PLAYED EACHOTHER in a final and Clark lost. End of story.
Nope. Not futile or dumb. You are just so biased and slanted towards the narrative that you want that you will continue to move the goalposts to suit what works for you. They played one time. One. Reese was on a far better team and despite being outplayed by Clark you want to use that ring as the gauge. So based on your logic (that shifts with the wind), David Tyree is a better WR than Randy Moss because his team beat Moss’s team and rings are all that matter, especially head to head.
That makes Tyree a WINNER and Moss a LOSER. I imagine though that you will shift again to not include this and find something else to use. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
Nope. Not futile or dumb. You are just so biased and slanted towards the narrative that you want that you will continue to move the goalposts to suit what works for you. They played one time. One. Reese was on a far better team and despite being outplayed by Clark you want to use that ring as the gauge. So based on your logic (that shifts with the wind), David Tyree is a better WR than Randy Moss because his team beat Moss’s team and rings are all that matter, especially head to head.
That makes Tyree a WINNER and Moss a LOSER. I imagine though that you will shift again to not include this and find something else to use.
Comparing nfl with NBA is dumb logic you moron because Moss can't control what the defense, special teams or QB does. But in basketball Clark and Reese have a way bigger influence and the bottom line is Clark LOST two finals. FACT. A Clark groupie like you will always make excuses of course but the history books won't lie. Clark, DIDN'T GET IT DONE!!. Fullstop. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Comparing nfl with NBA is dumb logic you moron because Moss can't control what the defense, special teams or QB does. But in basketball Clark and Reese have a way bigger influence and the bottom line is Clark LOST two finals. FACT. A Clark groupie like you will always make excuses of course but the history books won't lie. Clark, DIDN'T GET IT DONE!!. Fullstop.
Nope. Not a Clark groupie at all. Just trying to make sense of your logic which, as expected, shifted again. You agreed that those with rings are winners and those without are losers. I then compared CEH (two rings) with Sanders (zero) and Hardman (three rings) with Moss (zero). You then argued that it didn’t count because they didn’t play against each other. So when I compared Tyree(one ring and head to head victory) to Moss (zero rings and head to head loss to Tyree) and you adjusted again.
Then the team as a whole mattered…..just not with Clark. I guess Doncic is a loser too because despite his 30pts, 10 rebounds, 1 assist, and 2 steals, his team lost by 18. A winner is people like Sam Hauser because his team won and he contributed to it.
I guess team success matters when it suits a narrative and individual success matters when a different narrative is needed. Pick a stance and stand by it vs adjusting to fit your anti Clark bias. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Comparing nfl with NBA is dumb logic you moron because Moss can't control what the defense, special teams or QB does. But in basketball Clark and Reese have a way bigger influence and the bottom line is Clark LOST two finals. FACT. A Clark groupie like you will always make excuses of course but the history books won't lie. Clark, DIDN'T GET IT DONE!!. Fullstop.
So is comparing with college basketball where super programs control a disproportionate amount of resources and ability to recruit a full team. These teams have bench players better than most teams starters. There’s a reason Steph had no college success. There’s a long long long line of generational players in all sports, including basketball, who didn’t do dick in college. Especially those who didn’t go to a super team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Did Sanders play against Ceh? No. So your point is both dumb and futile. Reese and Clark PLAYED EACHOTHER in a final and Clark lost. End of story.
They played each other in the eliite 8, Reese had the more talented supporting cast and .............
Seriously would any GM on the planet pick Reese over Clark? Reese was lucky to go No 7. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
Nope. Not a Clark groupie at all. Just trying to make sense of your logic which, as expected, shifted again. You agreed that those with rings are winners and those without are losers. I then compared CEH (two rings) with Sanders (zero) and Hardman (three rings) with Moss (zero). You then argued that it didn’t count because they didn’t play against each other. So when I compared Tyree(one ring and head to head victory) to Moss (zero rings and head to head loss to Tyree) and you adjusted again.
Then the team as a whole mattered…..just not with Clark. I guess Doncic is a loser too because despite his 30pts, 10 rebounds, 1 assist, and 2 steals, his team lost by 18. A winner is people like Sam Hauser because his team won and he contributed to it.
I guess team success matters when it suits a narrative and individual success matters when a different narrative is needed. Pick a stance and stand by it vs adjusting to fit your anti Clark bias.
A guy losing a final is one thing. But if you LOSE TWO IN A ROW then yes, HE IS A LOSER LIKE CLARK!!. Period. And your argument sucks when trying to compare all time greats to jags. Why not compare Sanders to Emmitt Smith?? It undermines your argument because one was a winner and one wasn't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
A guy losing a final is one thing. But if you LOSE TWO IN A ROW then yes, HE IS A LOSER LIKE CLARK!!. Period. And your argument sucks when trying to compare all time greats to jags. Why not compare Sanders to Emmitt Smith?? It undermines your argument because one was a winner and one wasn't.
Clark is the all time scoring leader in women’s college basketball who willed a very meh Iowa team to two championship game appearances. That’s not a JAG. Why did I not compare Emmitt Smith to Barry Sanders? Simple. They are both legendary players and I don’t use rings to justify one over the other. You on the other hand are using rings as a measuring stick. Difference is your argument was foolish, flawed, and easily exposed.
I don’t hate or even dislike Reese. She’s a great player who did nothing her first two years in college, transferred to a more talented team with a HOF HC, won a championship and didn’t even make the championship game after. Clark accomplished far more with less talent around her in college and the jury is still out on whether that will translate to the WNBA. [Reply]
