But We Haven’t Beaten Anyone With A Winning Record. Oh, Wait

[CxC1993]

They’ll move the goalposts, but it doesn’t matter. Just keep winning!

 

[ICP]

Lol, bout time

 

[Cmac]

Now once the after party is over......let's stay focused. More games remaining.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

The Cowboys can't beat winning teams that don't have green in their uniform

 

[starfan1]

The Cowboys can't beat winning teams that don't have green in their uniform

well that may be lol. we got a quite of bit of winning teams with blue upcoming so well see whats up

 

[CowboyoWales]

The narrative will be the Iggles will still win the East, so this win meant nothing

And the response to that should be, after comprehensive defeats vrs the two main NFC rivals, I doubt it'll matter whether they stumble to the no.1 seeding....indeed I wouldn't mind a Divisional game at Lincoln.....bring it on.

 

[Wangchung83]

We can't beat winning teams, on the road, in the playoffs, after 4pm, when the temperature is below 65F, and the wind is over 5mph
Adding lots of variables to cover everything.

All those are correct until proven otherwise

 

[cowboyed]

IDK that pass to Gallup was money.

The one to Cooks was on a high speed zip line inches away from being a touchdown. The one to Galloway was a laser guided bomb.

 

[Proof]

Nobody looks at it like that except people doing mental gymnastics to ignore reality.

yes they do. it's technically correct, the best kind of correct.

 

[Kevinicus]

yes they do. it's technically correct, the best kind of correct.

No it's not.
It would be very stupid to look at the record at the time of playing (unless you were currently at that time). This is especially stupid when talking about a week 2 opponent.
If a team wins week 1, and then proceeds to go 1-16 for the season, you would look like the biggest fool ever to try and claim the team that played them in weak two beat a team with a winning record. It's absolutely absurd.
The best idea we have of if a team has a winning record is what their record is at the end of the season. The second best idea we have is what their record is right this moment (and since we're not able to see the future, and we're not at the end of the season, this is the best method at this point in time).
Why would anyone with any brain cells try and look backwards to the smallest sample size, especially knowing that current data would refute it? Insanity or agenda driven nonsense.

 

[aikemirv]

IDK that pass to Gallup was money.

The pass to CeeDee was money too.
Dak was getting crushed on the one to Gallup though. That was super impressive!

 

[Fletch]

They were 10-2

I mean you are what your record says you are, right?

That coming from a HOF coach, Bill Parcells.

We smashed last year’s NFC East champ, NFC champion, Super Bowl runner-up, 10-2 Eagles.

 

[Proof]

No it's not.
It would be very stupid to look at the record at the time of playing (unless you were currently at that time). This is especially stupid when talking about a week 2 opponent.
If a team wins week 1, and then proceeds to go 1-16 for the season, you would look like the biggest fool ever to try and claim the team that played them in weak two beat a team with a winning record. It's absolutely absurd.
The best idea we have of if a team has a winning record is what their record is at the end of the season. The second best idea we have is what their record is right this moment (and since we're not able to see the future, and we're not at the end of the season, this is the best method at this point in time).
Why would anyone with any brain cells try and look backwards to the smallest sample size, especially knowing that current data would refute it? Insanity or agenda driven nonsense.

i'm aware. you're the one that said "factually correct" so we're dealing with facts, yeah? the seahawks had a winning record when we beat them as well, but the caveat is that after we beat them, they were no longer winning. can't be some sliding scale. jets had a winning record, we beat them. that's "factually correct" especially since we're not at the end of the season. it's semantics, it's silly, but all of the argument is, so i don't mind being silly along with it. especially since it's TECHNICALLY and FACTUALLY correct.

 

[Kevinicus]

i'm aware. you're the one that said "factually correct" so we're dealing with facts, yeah? the seahawks had a winning record when we beat them as well, but the caveat is that after we beat them, they were no longer winning. can't be some sliding scale. jets had a winning record, we beat them. that's "factually correct" especially since we're not at the end of the season. it's semantics, it's silly, but all of the argument is, so i don't mind being silly along with it. especially since it's TECHNICALLY and FACTUALLY correct.

But it IS a "sliding scale."
Team with a winning record is not a static stat until the season is over. It's in flux throughout the season.
The Jets are not a team with a winning record because AT ONE TIME with a tiny sample size they had a winning record. They're a 5-8 team. Factually, they are not a team with a winning record. The fact that they happened to start 1-0 doesn't change that (unless they win the last 4).

Technically, at week three, you can never say you've beaten a team with a winning record, as the best record they could have at that point is 1-1.

It's what the team is, not what they were at some random point in the season.
I'd agree it's a silly thing to look at, at least until late in the season, as it's something that's constantly in flux, and because of issues of teams near .500 and how the game with whichever team the argument is being made against turns out (lose to a 6-5 team, and you lost to team with a winning record, win, and they no longer have a winning record, so you can't claim a win against a winning team). And, I think their are other factors (health at various times, margins of victory, etc.) to consider.

 

[G2]

It was a silly argument to begin with. You can only play who's on your schedule, by Dallas winning it contributes to the opposing teams losing record, and is just insignificant.

 

[Proof]

But it IS a "sliding scale."
Team with a winning record is not a static stat until the season is over. It's in flux throughout the season.
The Jets are not a team with a winning record because AT ONE TIME with a tiny sample size they had a winning record. They're a 5-8 team. Factually, they are not a team with a winning record. The fact that they happened to start 1-0 doesn't change that (unless they win the last 4).

Technically, at week three, you can never say you've beaten a team with a winning record, as the best record they could have at that point is 1-1.

It's what the team is, not what they were at some random point in the season.
I'd agree it's a silly thing to look at, at least until late in the season, as it's something that's constantly in flux, and because of issues of teams near .500 and how the game with whichever team the argument is being made against turns out (lose to a 6-5 team, and you lost to team with a winning record, win, and they no longer have a winning record, so you can't claim a win against a winning team). And, I think their are other factors (health at various times, margins of victory, etc.) to consider.

yeah, I agree with all of that. except that the jets game wasn't a random point in the season, it was when we played them. I used sliding scale wrt changing the definition or criteria. Not by *you*, but in general. Ultimately none of it matters, and all of these sample sizes were small. we played (and lost) to 2 teams w/ winning records and somehow that was a major indictment. oh well. just win baby

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

That was true two weeks ago. It was factually correct.

I was trying to figure out how it's "moving the goal post".

It's like some people complain about drama then go out of their way to manufacture it.

 

[Kevinicus]

yeah, I agree with all of that. except that the jets game wasn't a random point in the season, it was when we played them. I used sliding scale wrt changing the definition or criteria. Not by *you*, but in general. Ultimately none of it matters, and all of these sample sizes were small. we played (and lost) to 2 teams w/ winning records and somehow that was a major indictment. oh well. just win baby

I mean that it's random when looking at the quality of a team (which is the entire point of the whole "team with a winning record" argument), and when team A plays team B is just a random point on the schedule, but the entire schedule is what determines if a team has a winning record. It's about looking at the quality of teams played, and to do that, you use the greatest sample size available.

 

[LovinItAll]

I HATE when mods edit the actual title to my (this) thread. I know how to write. If I’d wanted the title of the thread to be what it currently is, I’d have written it that way.

Please don’t edit my content!!!

 

[CoachD]

Don't worry. They'll move the needle saying the Eagles have been in a slump, and it doesn't count.

When don't these D bags spin it when it comes to the Cowboys.