| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68918
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| SwiftTexan wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age. |
And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course). |
Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.
Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.
Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.
I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over. |
Four posts later in the span of four and a half hours... still arguing with SoS and still circling around the same thing.
You're just a big phony! |
Easier said than done. I tried so hard and got so far but in the end, it doesn't even matter.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SaveourSonics
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45364
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | SwiftTexan wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age. |
And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course). |
Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.
Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.
Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.
I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over. |
Four posts later in the span of four and a half hours... still arguing with SoS and still circling around the same thing.
You're just a big phony! |
Easier said than done. I tried so hard and got so far but in the end, it doesn't even matter. |
P.O.D.?
_________________
 '
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SwiftTexan
Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 4345
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SwiftTexan wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age. |
And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course). |
Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.
Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.
Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.
I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over. |
Four posts later in the span of four and a half hours... still arguing with SoS and still circling around the same thing.
You're just a big phony! |
Easier said than done. I tried so hard and got so far but in the end, it doesn't even matter. |
P.O.D.? |
I am disappointment in you SoS. Linkin Park!!!
You can't take 5 seconds to google "Tried so hard but in the end it doesn't even matter" before you make a fool of yourself. C'mon man! Google is your friend, it's worth a google.
EDIT: PS - I think it's super funny that the last time Matt Flynn was truly discussed in this thread was almost 10 days ago and on Page 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaveourSonics
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45364
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SwiftTexan wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SwiftTexan wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | What did Manning do better besides being bigger and more talented? The guy was still ridiculously intelligent, he commanded that team and still had his legendary poise at that age. |
And...Wilson doesn't possess these? He was intelligent enough to throw 28 interceptions and commanding enough to lead his team to 3 wins. And I'm not really buying the excuse of talent, because Andrew Luck has done more with a lot less and Seattle certainly wasn't considered to have great offensive weapons prior to Wilson making them look good (outside of Lynch, of course). |
Luck has done more with a lot less? My arse. Especially considering WHEN Manning did that.
Oh...ok...so Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin and Sidney Rice aren't good players...it's just Wilson makes them look good. I'll go ahead and remember that for next time when you're talking up one of them.
Nope, Wilson doesn't possess those on the same level of Manning. And I'm literally laughing my butt off at you using wins as proof of a guy's ability to command his team. Sounds like the same argument the Luck fans use to try to claim he's equal or better than Wilson...an argument that I think you probably would say is ridiculous...but hey, lets evaluate a player based on how many games his team wins. That Rodgers guy sure sucked in his first year as a starter...I mean the Packers only won 6 games...Andrew Luck this year is far better than Rodgers was.
I'm just gonna walk away now, SOS, your homerism is taking over. |
Four posts later in the span of four and a half hours... still arguing with SoS and still circling around the same thing.
You're just a big phony! |
Easier said than done. I tried so hard and got so far but in the end, it doesn't even matter. |
P.O.D.? |
I am disappointment in you SoS. Linkin Park!!!
You can't take 5 seconds to google "Tried so hard but in the end it doesn't even matter" before you make a fool of yourself. C'mon man! Google is your friend, it's worth a google.
EDIT: PS - I think it's super funny that the last time Matt Flynn was truly discussed in this thread was almost 10 days ago and on Page 4. |
Well
1. I didn't wanna Google it! I can handle myself!
2. Hand to God, Linkin Park was my next guess.
3. Why the hell did I think that was P.O.D.?
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 68918
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Meh, at least you didn't guess Nickelback. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr.Seahawk
Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| eh either way all those bands suck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
