Cowboys O scoring at a historic pace

[SpaceCowboy99]

Will we ever have a great defense to pair with this O?

Or a good defense?

Or an adequate defense?

They still need to prove they can do it when it counts. As we had good defense in the 22 and 23 seasons and the offense choked in both playoff games against SF.

As I have stated before, I don't care if Dak wins the MVP, we finish 1st in the league in offensive stats, and are 15-2.

Through years of repeated failure to produce in the playoffs, they owe it to their fans to prove it when it counts.

Posts like these just make it fun to bump it at the end of the season when we are bounced out the playoffs and ask Nav22, how's that historic O doing? Of course that's frowned upon by the admins.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

They still need to prove they can do it when it counts. As we had good defense in the 22 and 23 seasons and the offense choked in both playoff games against SF.

As I have stated before, I don't care if Dak wins the MVP, we finish 1st in the league in offensive stats, and are 15-2.

Through years of repeated failure to produce in the playoffs, they owe it to their fans to prove it when it counts.

Posts like these just make it fun to bump it at the end of the season when we are bounced out the playoffs and ask Nav22, how's that historic O doing? Of course that's frowned upon by the admins.

We can’t even get in the playoffs. So for me if they go 15-2 that means something.

 

[BobSacamano]

Wondering how many more pages wlil be spent on debating the meaning of the word "historic" and the number of years between 2000, 2020 and 2026, all stemming from a fun Twitter stat.

Some people have a stance and just won’t move off it.

 

[GMO415]

Will we ever have a great defense to pair with this O?

Or a good defense?

Or an adequate defense?

Useless stats

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

What does "historic" even mean?

That we're number 5 this season? XD

 

[Nav22]

So....nothing is historic then? The word has no meaning at all? What's the point of the word again?

Objectively, the 1972 season is important and historic (in the context of football). Don't be ridiculous.

You're having a hard time with subjective vs objective.

No, that is not OBJECTIVELY true about the 1972 Dolphins, because "historic" is a subjective term.

Even if you think you're slick by adding "(in the context of football)" as if the Cowboys blistering points/drive scoring can't also be considered historic "(in the context of football)".

Nice job derailing this thread with this ridiculous little crusade of yours though!

 

[Nav22]

They still need to prove they can do it when it counts. As we had good defense in the 22 and 23 seasons and the offense choked in both playoff games against SF.

As I have stated before, I don't care if Dak wins the MVP, we finish 1st in the league in offensive stats, and are 15-2.

Through years of repeated failure to produce in the playoffs, they owe it to their fans to prove it when it counts.

Posts like these just make it fun to bump it at the end of the season when we are bounced out the playoffs and ask Nav22, how's that historic O doing? Of course that's frowned upon by the admins.

"How's that historic O doing?"

That would be an insanely stupid call-out, ya know, because I never said they'd be historically great all year or in the playoffs.

We're entering Week 5.

I literally just said "they're on a historic PACE".

Why can't you people just read things and properly process them the first time? Why do I need to also teach you people English and logic?

 

[Gorgon]

Will we ever have a great defense to pair with this O?

Or a good defense?

Or an adequate defense?

Heard a stat that the yards per play was also a historic high. I believe we are only two good defenders away now, just one good edge rusher and one more LB. Yeah, we need another corner, but could roll coverage if we had those first two. Biggest issue right now is there are no "sellers." Most previously bad teams---Raiders, Giants, for ex., have won enough to have hope, while "good" teams like Bills, Pats, Bears, etc., think they'll get better. So as of today, I see no one out there to get. Could change by week 8.

 

[Proof]

That is the point though. It is not on a pace to be historic. It is on a pace to be the 5th best offense since 2000. Nothing about it, at this time, seems to meet the definition of historic. I asked what a historic NFL offense should mean.

"Calling an NFL offense historic does not automatically mean it is the absolute best ever, but it does mean it is firmly in the conversation as one of the greatest, most statistically dominant, or most influential offenses in football history."

IMO, he is absolutely correct to say that nothing about this data deserves the word "historic" in the title of this thread.

that’s fine, take issue with the premise, not the literal interpretation. at the end of the day top 5 of the past 25 years is absolutely impressive. but no not historic

 

[Nav22]

Heard a stat that the yards per play was also a historic high. I believe we are only two good defenders away now, just one good edge rusher and one more LB. Yeah, we need another corner, but could roll coverage if we had those first two. Biggest issue right now is there are no "sellers." Most previously bad teams---Raiders, Giants, for ex., have won enough to have hope, while "good" teams like Bills, Pats, Bears, etc., think they'll get better. So as of today, I see no one out there to get. Could change by week 8.

Khalil Mack is a name I've been seeing. Chargers are 0-4 but still hoping to turn it around.

 

[Kevinicus]

You're having a hard time with subjective vs objective.

No, that is not OBJECTIVELY true about the 1972 Dolphins, because "historic" is a subjective term.

Even if you think you're slick by adding "(in the context of football)" as if the Cowboys blistering points/drive scoring can't also be considered historic "(in the context of football)".

Nice job derailing this thread with this ridiculous little crusade of yours though!

You appear to have the problem. There are things that objectively meet the definition.

Your argument is you are using a pointless word with no meaning. You are arguing against yourself and don't even realize it.

 

[Nav22]

You appear to have the problem. There are things that objectively meet the definition.

Your argument is you are using a pointless word with no meaning. You are arguing against yourself and don't even realize it.

Nothing worse than a meathead who thinks he's smarter than he is.

Keep digging that hole deeper!


"Historic" is a subjective and evaluative term, while its cousin "historical" leans objective. [1]

The Core Difference

• • Historic (Subjective): Means important, famous, or consequential in history. It requires a human value judgment about significance.
  • 
    
  • Historical (Objective): Means connected to the past. It is a factual check (did it happen / belong to history?).

 

[Kevinicus]

Nothing worse than a meathead who thinks he's smarter than he is.

Keep digging that hole deeper!


"Historic" is a subjective and evaluative term, while its cousin "historical" leans objective. [1]

The Core Difference

• • Historic (Subjective): Means important, famous, or consequential in history. It requires a human value judgment about significance.
  • 
    
  • Historical (Objective): Means connected to the past. It is a factual check (did it happen / belong to history?).

The 1972 Miami Dolphins season is one of the clearest examples of an objectively historic achievement in sports history.

The Objective Core

• The Record: They went 17-0, completing the only undefeated regular and postseason in modern NFL history.
• The Stat: It is a mathematically absolute milestone. No opinions can change the fact that their losses column reads zero.

The Subjective Layer (Where the debate lives)
Even with an objective milestone, football fans and historians still layer on subjective interpretations:

• The "Greatest" Debate: Critics often point out that the 1972 Dolphins played a statistically weak schedule, leading some to argue that teams like the 1985 Bears or 1989 49ers were "greater" football teams despite having losses.
• Volume vs. Perfection: Some debate whether the 2007 New England Patriots' 18-1 record (more total wins, but a loss in the Super Bowl) was a more impressive football achievement than the Dolphins' perfect 17-0.

So while the greatness of the team can be debated subjectively, their status as a unique, unblemished historical milestone is entirely objective.

 

[Nav22]

The 1972 Miami Dolphins season is one of the clearest examples of an objectively historic achievement in sports history.

The Objective Core

• The Record: They went 17-0, completing the only undefeated regular and postseason in modern NFL history.
• The Stat: It is a mathematically absolute milestone. No opinions can change the fact that their losses column reads zero.

The Subjective Layer (Where the debate lives)
Even with an objective milestone, football fans and historians still layer on subjective interpretations:

• The "Greatest" Debate: Critics often point out that the 1972 Dolphins played a statistically weak schedule, leading some to argue that teams like the 1985 Bears or 1989 49ers were "greater" football teams despite having losses.
• Volume vs. Perfection: Some debate whether the 2007 New England Patriots' 18-1 record (more total wins, but a loss in the Super Bowl) was a more impressive football achievement than the Dolphins' perfect 17-0.

So while the greatness of the team can be debated subjectively, their status as a unique, unblemished historical milestone is entirely objective.

Oh man. If only you could properly interpret that and apply it to the example in this thread.


The term historic is a blend of objective fact and subjective judgment.

OBJECTIVE FACT: 1972 Dolphins went undefeated.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT: How much this matters (if at all).

OBJECTIVE FACT: Cowboys offense through 4 games is on pace to finish top 5 since (at least) 2000 in points/drive.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT: How much this matters (if at all).



This is the hill you're dying on?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

You literally can't even spell "embarrassment".

Tell me more about how intelligent you are!

It honestly doesn't matter to me if I spelled it right for you or not. If that amuses you so much....I suppose we could say it was worth it.

 

[Kevinicus]

Oh man. If only you could properly interpret that and apply it to the example in this thread.


The term historic is a blend of objective fact and subjective judgment.

OBJECTIVE FACT: 1972 Dolphins went undefeated.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT: How much this matters (if at all).

OBJECTIVE FACT: Cowboys offense through 4 games is on pace to finish top 5 since (at least) 2000 in points/drive.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT: How much this matters (if at all).



This is the hill you're dying on?

Lol, you didn't understand it and now even admitting to your error of it being entirely subjective.

The fact is there are objective measures we can look at in determining if something is historic, even if you want to lie to yourself about them.

You can argue subjectively about how historic some things are, but there are clearly objective measures for if something is historic at all.


Trying to apply the word to...checks notes...points per drive in *only* the first 4 games of a season is a litttle dee dee dee. Especially when it's not even #1.

 

[LouBrown]

The 1972 Miami Dolphins season is one of the clearest examples of an objectively historic achievement in sports history.

I love that you Googled something to the effect of "are the 72 Dolphins objectively historic." lol

Objectively: They are the only undefeated team.
Subjectively: Being undefeated is an historic accomplishment.

 

[Nav22]

Lol, you didn't understand it and now even admitting to your error of it being entirely subjective.

The fact is there are objective measures we can look at in determining if something is historic, even if you want to lie to yourself about them.

You can argue subjectively about how historic some things are, but there are clearly objective measures for if something is historic at all.


Trying to apply the word to...checks notes...points per drive in *only* the first 4 games of a season is a litttle dee dee dee. Especially when it's not even #1.

LOLLLLLL

Thanks so much for the laughs. Seriously.

"It's not entirely subjective!"

Correct.

If only you could understand that sentence and apply it appropriately. You're unable to because you're..... well, I don't want to get benched. Have a good one!!!

 

[Nav22]

It honestly doesn't matter to me if I spelled it right for you or not. If that amuses you so much....I suppose we could say it was worth it.

You didn't misspell it because of defiance towards me.

It wasn't intentional.

You misspelled it because you didn't know how to spell "embarrassment."

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

You didn't misspell it because of defiance towards me.

It wasn't intentional.

You misspelled it because you didn't know how to spell "embarrassment."

Nope...still don't care.

All manner of professional writing - Newpapers, e-media, government documents, academia, fiction and non-fiction..many with professional editors...have spelling and grammar errors.

But for you...it's hillarious I mispelled a word on my phone on a sports fan message board.

now THAT...is worthy.

The dimwitted are so easily amused.