Discussion in 'Jerry/Garrett/Rant Zone' started by rockj7, Apr 30, 2014.
Not even in the bottom 1/8th
32 / 8 = 4. We're the 6th to last, meaning we're better than the bottom 1/8th (the bottom 4). Not that that's saying much.
Comfortably out of relegation territory (if it was Premier League)
Yea, but we still have the best helmet!
and this is news
To be honest, I couldn't give a **** about what's happened since 1997. The team was completely talent deprived for the early 2000s. I'm more troubled by missing the playoffs over the past four years. Those were prime years for a statistically brilliant quarterback.
Its not news but when it illustrated and who has more playoff wins then us it becomes disturbing
I wouldn't be anymore happy if they had 7 wins like the Jets.
If we grabbed a SB like the Rams or the Bucs 10 years ago I wouldn't like the last 5 years any more than I do today.
The other thing I see on that list is how few teams have had continuous success during that time.
Are we not entertained?
Let's see the chart on Nielsen ratings!!
and this is new
most people can't stop talking about em.
But Jerry's still making millions.
What? By that logic, which of the five teams with 0 playoff wins is also not in the bottom eighth?
Just curious, why was the year 1997 used as a starting point?
It's not an round year like 20, 25 or 30 years ago.
Could it have been to maximize the very worst case for Dallas?
All 4 of those teams are in the bottom 1/8th
Definitely a Dallas centric timeframe. But since it is a Dallas focused board, any year between 1997 and 2000 is relevant...the team was in decline after 1996, the triplets began to fall off, and no doubt jerry was large and in charge for the rebuild after aikman, Irvin, deion, Lett, Haley, novacek, Johnston, et am began to move on.
I agree, that time frame is far more significant for those living in the present. It's also disturbing. My guess is that if the team made the playoffs the past three years, they would still not have won another playoff game. It's frustrating, nevertheless.
It fit the agenda!
Why not pick 1992 as a starting point for number of Super Bowl wins? And even include Super Bowl winning %?