Quote:
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.