All 8 of the Cowboys SB teams won their season finale

[KJJ]

You made the absurd argument for like 5 pages.You don't remember?

You're wasting your time and everyone else on here.

It didn't fit your narrative so you said it was not important.

Why did you want to "ruffle feathers" as you said?

What would be the purpose of trying to do that to "fellow fans" when we are in the middle of a historic season.

If as a fan your argument is we have plenty to worry about when we are 13-3. With one loss coming against our third string. Then when should we not worry and just be a confident fan?

I remember what I said and you're twisting what I said. You're making a claim so it's up to you to provide the post. Stop diverting and let's see my quote.

 

[DogFace]

That's your take. I've said repeatedly said it doesn't mean this Cowboys team won't make it to the SB.

Then what is your point? To say it's unlikely?

Why would you do that?

 

[Doomsday101]

That's your take. I've said repeatedly said it doesn't mean this Cowboys team won't make it to the SB.

There you go we agree it is a meaningless stat.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The league has always been QB driven which is why QBs were going #1 overall decades ago just about as often as they are now. Jim Plunkett went #1 overall and so did Terry Bradshaw.

This is untrue.

2007-2016: 7 QBs taken #1
1997-2006: 7 QBs taken #1
1987-1996: 4 QBs taken #1
1977-1986: 1 QB taken #1
1967-1976: 3 QB taken #1

 

[KJJ]

It is a star driven league RB's Ricky Bell and Tony Dorsett were 1 and 2 overall draft picks in 1977.

There were no QBs worth taking #1 overall that year. The same thing has happened many times during this era where a non QB was taken #1 overall.

 

[Virginia-Dave]

The 92 Cowboys were still hoping for the #1 seed, just a game back of the niners who finished their season on MNF. Of course we didn't rest our starters that year. The 93 Cowboys couldn't rest starters. They played the giants in their finale, an epic game that gave the winner the division, the bye, and home field advantage. Emmitt played an unforgettable game w a separated shoulder, and the rest is history. The 94 Cowboys also had to win their finale to lock up the #1, as SF and GB both finished only a game behind them. I don't know about the SB teams from the 70's, but with only a 14 game schedule, I would bet they also needed to win their finale.

I understand that the Cowboys have never lost their last game and won a SB, but the Cowboys have never had the #1 seed locked up with 2 weeks to play either. They say there's a first time for everything though, right?

 

[KJJ]

There you go we agree it is a meaningless stat.

You're saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it doesn't mean we can't reach the SB the year but we'll be the first Cowboys team to ever do it that lost their regular season finale.

 

[BourbonBalz]

There were no QBs worth taking #1 overall that year. The same thing has happened many times during this era where a non QB was taken #1 overall.

You always seem to have an excuse when you position is wrong.

 

[KJJ]

This is untrue.

2007-2016: 7 QBs taken #1
1997-2006: 7 QBs taken #1
1987-1996: 4 QBs taken #1
1977-1986: 1 QB taken #1
1967-1976: 3 QB taken #1

It all comes down to if a QB is worthy of the #1 overall pick. It's always been the most important position in football.

 

[KJJ]

You always seem to have an excuse when you position is wrong.

Prove my position is wrong.

 

[Doomsday101]

You're saying it's meaningless. I'm saying it doesn't mean we can't reach the SB the year but we'll be the first Cowboys team to ever do it that lost their regular season finale.

I'm saying that because it is true, come on what does any of the 70's team have to do with the Cowboys of 2016? Nothing these players were not even born, evidently your stat only applies to the Cowboys since after all other teams who have won the SB lost their last game. Really when you look at it, it is a meaningless stat.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Prove my position is wrong.

Ha-ha! Look a couple of posts above. I told you it has NOT always been a QB driven league and it hasn't. Has the position always been important? Yes, but the league was absolutely a ground game primarily before the 1980's. There's a reason left tackles became one of the most important positions beginning in the 1980's. That's when the league became QB driven and changed to a passing game. Teams valued LTs more to protect their QBs. Before that time, not so much.

 

[BourbonBalz]

This is untrue.

2007-2016: 7 QBs taken #1
1997-2006: 7 QBs taken #1
1987-1996: 4 QBs taken #1
1977-1986: 1 QB taken #1
1967-1976: 3 QB taken #1

Right here is your proof!!!!!

 

[Doomsday101]

It all comes down to if a QB is worthy of the #1 overall pick. It's always been the most important position in football.

It comes down to talent and really until the 90's there were as RB taken with the overall #1 than QB. I agree it is the most important position and quite frankly the fact teams have drafted some of these guys #1 has lead to their failures since the talent was not there to make the draft choice.

 

[KJJ]

Once again what does "pretty large" mean? It sounds like you are saying that the sample size is large enough to say that the results are significant. Is this correct? Have you done a power analysis to back that up? In terms of significance, what statistical analysis did you do? Maybe an exact test of goodness of fit? What was the p value? Did you control for any other variables?

I don't need to do any additional analysis. I'm just trying to point out the the flaws in your logic. Data can fool you, even if it looks straight forward. If I was to guess, I would say that winning the last game of the regular season probably does correlate with the likelihood of a playoff team winning the Super Bowl. Even though that seems logical, it is only a guess. Which is all your statement is as well.

There's no flaws in my argument, some of you are creating arguments because you're giving your own take on my comments. If you don't know what certain things mean, that's your problem. You're just looking to waste my time. Go educate yourself on what "pretty large" means, then come back to me.

 

[big dog cowboy]

We haven't done real well in the playoffs over the years after dropping our regular season finale.

I fail to see what that has to do with this years team.

 

[DogFace]

His goal is obviously to attempt to bumb some fans out with anything negative he can think up.

He barely posts when we win.(He was gone for weeks during our 2014 run) He just couldn't take it anymore so he has a new strategy. Yes. It's immature and lame, but it makes him happy. So let's just try our best to entertain him.

 

[DogFace]

There's no flaws in my argument, some of you are creating arguments because you're giving your own take on my comments. If you don't know what certain things mean, that's your problem. You're just looking to waste my time. Go educate yourself on what "pretty large" means, then come back to me.

What exactly is your argument?

 

[KJJ]

Right here is your proof!!!!!

All that proves is how valuable QBs have always been because they were being taken #1 overall through the decades. The game has changed, it's a passing league now which forces teams to draft more QBs high. It's led to a lot of busts at the position.

 

[KJJ]

What exactly is your argument?

Go read my posts! No matter what I say you'll twist my comments which is why you won't provide that post you took issue with.