Seahawks vs Panthers

[tyke1doe]

Your point?

We are talking about the pro level here. Lot's of players won National Championships only to lose in the NFL.

If your aim is to get it on the record that he was a winner in college, well then yes, he did win a National Championship in college.

Oh, winning on the pro level. You mean like beating the Seahawks and getting to the NFC Championship Game, something Tony Romo hasn't done yet. Is that a nothing win to you?

You mean winning like the various awards he has won on the NFL level?

What is this winning you're speaking of?

 

[CrownCowboy]

Oh, winning on the pro level. You mean like beating the Seahawks and getting to the NFC Championship Game, something Tony Romo hasn't done yet. Is that a nothing win to you?

You mean winning like the various awards he has won on the NFL level?

What is this winning you're speaking of?

Not talking about Tony Romo, the discussion is about Cam Newton.

We are also not talking about individual awards or winning a damn divisional playoff game.

You can spin it any which way you want but what counts in the grand scheme of things is how many World Championships a team has won. And, like it or not, the leader of a football team, usually the Quarterback, is usually correlated with it.

Now if he and the Panthers win the Conference then that is something of signifigance that you may can make relevant to your "winner" argument but at this point the man and the team have never won anything.

 

[tyke1doe]

Not talking about Tony Romo, the discussion is about Cam Newton.

We are also not talking about individual awards or winning a damn divisional playoff game.

You can spin it any which way you want but what counts in the grand scheme of things is how many World Championships a team has won. And, like it or not, the leader of a football team, usually the Quarterback, is usually correlated with it.

Now if he and the Panthers win the Conference then that is something of signifigance that you may can make relevant to your "winner" argument but at this point the man and the team have never won anything.

Oh, so winning a divisional playoff game isn't winning anything? And here I thought you'd have to win a divisional game before getting to the conference championship.

Second, I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm trying to understand your argument. What constitutes hasn't won anything anyway?

So has Romo not won anything? What about Dan Fouts? What about Danny White? What about Phillip Rivers?

And conversely, has Donovan McNabb won something because he got to the Super Bowl? What about Trent Dilfer? What about Kapernick?

If your standard is a standard, it should apply to other quarterbacks not named Cam.

 

[tyke1doe]

Oh, and in Cam's five years in the league, he has taken his team to the playoffs three consecutive years, improving each year.
It's the same trajectory Aikman was on give or take a year.

Now maybe you're one of those guys who believes if you don't get to the Super Bowl you haven't won anything. But if that's the case, then there are a lot of quarterbacks in league history who haven't won anything.

 

[CrownCowboy]

Oh, so winning a divisional playoff game isn't winning anything? And here I thought you'd have to win a divisional game before getting to the conference championship.

Second, I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm trying to understand your argument. What constitutes hasn't won anything anyway?

So has Romo not won anything? What about Dan Fouts? What about Danny White? What about Phillip Rivers?

And conversely, has Donovan McNabb won something because he got to the Super Bowl? What about Trent Dilfer? What about Kapernick?

If your standard is a standard, it should apply to other quarterbacks not named Cam.

It's really not that hard to understand, well, maybe it is.

Again, my standard of winning in the grand scheme of things on the pro level is World Championships.

You play and try to win Regular season games to make the playoffs. You play and try to win playoff games to go to the Super Bowl. You play in the Super Bowl to be the best in the world and become Champion. That is the ultimate goal.

If your definition of a winner is a player that simply wins regular season games and has no success in the playoffs, I'm sure the vast majority of people will disagree with you. I mean I guess they are winners in the regular season LOL. If your definition of a winner is a player who wins playoff games but no Championships, I'm sure the vast majority of people will disagree with you. The same thing can said about losing Super Bowls although I guess you can make an argument that a Conference Championship has been won.

If you insist on bringing in other players into the discussion, I guess I can spell it out for you more. As much as I love Tony Romo, he and the teams he has played for in the NFL haven't won anything. Dan Fouts never won a Super Bowl. Danny White had great postseason success, but never won. Donovan McNabb went to a Super Bowl. Phillip Rivers has won playoff games. None of those guys have won a World Championship. They have never won it all and that is my standard.

Obviously you have a different standard and can be content with it. Not me.

 

[CrownCowboy]

Oh, and in Cam's five years in the league, he has taken his team to the playoffs three consecutive years, improving each year.
It's the same trajectory Aikman was on give or take a year.

Now maybe you're one of those guys who believes if you don't get to the Super Bowl you haven't won anything. But if that's the case, then there are a lot of quarterbacks in league history who haven't won anything.

Yep. There are alot of QB's in the league that have not won anything. What did those three consecutive years culminate in?

Nothing.

And let's stop comparing Cam to Troy Aikman.

 

[CrownCowboy]

I guess by your standards, the Philadelphia Eagles is a winning franchise.

Yeah. The Eagles have won playoff and regular season games. They have been to two Super Bowls, didn't win em, but they were there darn it!

Man! What winners!

 

[tyke1doe]

It's really not that hard to understand, well, maybe it is.

Again, my standard of winning in the grand scheme of things on the pro level is World Championships.

You play and try to win Regular season games to make the playoffs. You play and try to win playoff games to go to the Super Bowl. You play in the Super Bowl to be the best in the world and become Champion. That is the ultimate goal.
If your definition of a winner is a player that simply wins regular season games and has no success in the playoffs, I'm sure the vast majority of people will disagree with you. I mean I guess they are winners in the regular season LOL. If your definition of a winner is a player who wins playoff games but no Championships, I'm sure the vast majority of people will disagree with you. The same thing can said about losing Super Bowls although I guess you can make an argument that a Conference Championship has been won.

I like how you just assign an argument to me.
But, uh, yes, winning playoff games would be an example of winning something.
Remember, you said Cam has won nothing. Not I.

If you insist on bring in other players into the discussion, I guess I can spell it out for you more. As much as I love Tony Romo, he and the teams he has played for in the NFL haven't won anything. Dan Fouts never won a Super Bowl. Danny White had great postseason success, but never won. Donovan McNabb went to a Super Bowl. Phillip Rivers has won playoff games. None of those guys have won a World Championship. They have never won it all and that is my standard.

I don't see why you're getting all defensive. I'm just trying to understand your standard. And, yes, you must spell it out for me as I'm trying to understand. Now that you've explained that a quarterback who doesn't win the Super Bowl hasn't won anything, I'm good with that.

Obviously you have a different standard and can be content with it. Not me.

It all depends on the argument. I think a quarterback can be a winner but not a Super Bowl winner. I think Elway was a winner because he took inferior teams to the Super Bowl.

However, if you asked me if history would have looked favorably on him had he not won a Super Bowl, then I'd say no. If we make Super Bowls the standard, then obviously no.

But I'm a man of context. So that will dictate my response.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yep. There are alot of QB's in the league that have not won anything. What did those three consecutive years culminate in?

Nothing.

And let's stop comparing Cam to Troy Aikman.

Why?

Again, it's all about context.
Understand why I'm making the comparison, thank you.

 

[tyke1doe]

I guess by your standards, the Philadelphia Eagles is a winning franchise.

Yeah. The Eagles have won playoff and regular season games. They have been to two Super Bowls, didn't win em, but they were there darn it!

Man! What winners!

And by the same token, the Jets have been to one Super Bowl and are undefeated in their Super Bowl record but haven't been back in 50 years.

Man! What winners!

See how context and perspective shape this discussions?

 

[CrownCowboy]

I like how you just assign an argument to me.
But, uh, yes, winning playoff games would be an example of winning something.
Remember, you said Cam has won nothing. Not I.



I don't see why you're getting all defensive. I'm just trying to understand your standard. And, yes, you must spell it out for me as I'm trying to understand. Now that you've explained that a quarterback who doesn't win the Super Bowl hasn't won anything, I'm good with that.



It all depends on the argument. I think a quarterback can be a winner but not a Super Bowl winner. I think Elway was a winner because he took inferior teams to the Super Bowl.

However, if you asked me if history would have looked favorably on him had he not won a Super Bowl, then I'd say no. If we make Super Bowls the standard, then obviously no.

But I'm a man of context. So that will dictate my response.

We have different standards of winning. I understand your standard and you understand mine.

I don't guess either one of us are wrong. It's just a difference of opinion and justification.

You and I have been in disagreement before and I'm sure we'll be in disagreement again. As always, I respect your opinion and look forward to the debate. I am not trying to seem defensive and if you took offense I apologize.

Keep em coming buddy. LOL

 

[tyke1doe]

We have different standards of winning. I understand your standard and you understand mine.

I don't guess either one of us are wrong. It's just a difference of opinion and justification.

You and I have been in disagreement before and I'm sure we'll be in disagreement again. As always, I respect your opinion and look forward to the debate. I am not trying to seem defensive and if you took offense I apologize.

Keep em coming buddy. LOL

Fair enough.

Peace.

 

[CrownCowboy]

And by the same token, the Jets have been to one Super Bowl and are undefeated in their Super Bowl record but haven't been back in 50 years.

Man! What winners!

See how context and perspective shape this discussions?

You can shape any perspective into a context that favors a certain opinion.

The Jets have won it all. They were world Champions. They were winners at one time. The Panthers and Cam Newton have never won.

That's my perspective.

 

[tyke1doe]

You can shape any perspective into a context that favors a certain opinion.

The Jets have won it all. They were world Champions. They were winners at one time. The Panthers and Cam Newton have never won.

That's my perspective.

Fair enough. All I was looking for was a definition. You've provided that. I'm col with it.