ESPN: We are 0 players away from contending for the Super Bowl

[tyke1doe]

Unfortunately that's not really how reality works.

Every postseason there are a handful of teams that have the talent to truly are a run. Only one team will. We were absolutely in that grouping.

It takes talent, preparation AND luck.

But in your black and white world I realize how this may be too nuanced a concept for you understand and fully grasp.

Actually, it's EXACTLY how reality works.

In reality, the teams who are good enough to be in the Super Bowl ARE in the Super Bowl. Unless, they have a Super Bowl for teams that get beat and don't qualify. Oh, yeah, they're called THE PLAYOFFS.

You don't have a leg to stand on. So you try to twist reality to comport to what you want it to be. But reality says the Seahawks and the Patriots are in the playoffs. Therefore, they're the only two teams, based on the present/real structure, that were good enough to make the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but reality doesn't change just because you want it to. If that's too nuanced for you, reality says, "I don't care."

P.S. I love how you, even in your argument to refute my point, underscore my point.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's certainly a contentious statement, almost as debatable as the customary 'quarterback talent equals number of Super Bowl rings' argument. In my opinion of the post-1994 cba/salary cap era, the two franchises reaching the Super Bowl each year are often the playoff teams who committed the least number of turnovers, capitalized the most on their opponents' turnovers, and executed their schemes well-enough in their games--not necessarily the two teams with the most efficient rosters and best coaching.

Sometimes teams advance to the Super Bowl because of lucky bounces, split-second lapses of judgment, and yes, occasionally questionable officiating. It may even be said the "better" team during a particular playoff game were fortunate enough to win by game's end but not because that team was THE best of the two. Of course, the legs of my opinion are automatically cut down from underneath when it must contend with "the fact" that the only teams qualified to play in the Super Bowl are the two that got there.

Arguments are like opinions, everyone can make one and everyone has one. But what separates arguments? Reality. And what does reality tell us in this case? There's a winner-take-all competition. And the best team that day, the team that's good enough to advance is the one who actually advances. If your team isn't good enough or lucky enough or skilled enough on that day, it doesn't advance. PERIOD!

Yes, other variables can come into play - luck, turnovers, bad calls, etc. But those are part of the game. And if you couldn't during the game and can't overcome them in the game, you weren't good enough.

The two teams that were good enough are in the Super Bowl. This isn't Awana league where you don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy and told they're winners. This is winner-take-all competition. The teams that compete know on this given day they need to be at their best. They need to be "good enough" to advance. The team that advances is the one that is good enough. The team that doesn't wasn't good enough.

It really doesn't get much simpler than that. But if you're looking for consolation prizes, yeah, I guess you console yourself in thinking that this team was "good enough." And yet, this "good enough" team is sitting at home watching the team that was better compete in the Super Bowl.

 

[DallasEast]

Arguments are like opinions, everyone can make one and everyone has one. But what separates arguments? Reality. And what does reality tell us in this case? There's a winner-take-all competition. And the best team that day, the team that's good enough to advance is the one who actually advances. If your team isn't good enough or lucky enough or skilled enough on that day, it doesn't advance. PERIOD!

Yes, other variables can come into play - luck, turnovers, bad calls, etc. But those are part of the game. And if you couldn't during the game and can't overcome them in the game, you weren't good enough.

The two teams that were good enough are in the Super Bowl. This isn't Awana league where you don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy and told they're winners. This is winner-take-all competition. The teams that compete know on this given day they need to be at their best. They need to be "good enough" to advance. The team that advances is the one that is good enough. The team that doesn't wasn't good enough.

It really doesn't get much simpler than that. But if you're looking for consolation prizes, yeah, I guess you console yourself in thinking that this team was "good enough." And yet, this "good enough" team is sitting at home watching the team that was better compete in the Super Bowl.

Basically, everything that happens during a game is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the final score. A tearfully thankful Russell Wilson certainly agrees.

 

[tyke1doe]

Basically, everything that happens during a game is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the final score. A tearfully thankful Russell Wilson certainly agrees.

Well, everything in the game DOES matter because it determines who is the better team, or the team "good enough" to advance to the Super Bowl. There are some teams that can fight through four interceptions, bad calls, unlucky bounces and STILL win the game. Those are the teams "good enough" to play in the Super Bowl. The team that didn't win - for whatever reason - is not.

That's my whole point with respect to this conversation. Cowboys fans can argue all they want that we were "good enough" to play in the Super Bowl. But the fact remains if we were, we'd be playing. We're not. So we weren't. PERIOD!

That's reality, unless there's somewhere else in the universe where the Cowboys are playing in the Super Bowl after losing in the playoffs. But last time I checked, they don't play "almost good enough" bowls and pass them off as Super Bowls.

 

[dfense]

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12179331/how-many-players-away-super-bowl-team

Checked out a bit of their methodology and it seems pretty sound... I would have to disagree and say we were 4 players away from contending next year, or 2 by their measurement (at least 2 new players on the d-line and 2 new players in the secondary, they were far kinder to Wilcox (who I think is an average SS... but when we need a FS he isn't that) and Melton (good through part of the year... but just not enough) than I would have been) but still... nice to see them say that we are that close. Though... reallly... Romo is not elite?

So for the Packers, I guess those two missing players were guys who could tackle?

 

[DallasEast]

Well, everything in the game DOES matter because it determines who is the better team, or the team "good enough" to advance to the Super Bowl. There are some teams that can fight through four interceptions, bad calls, unlucky bounces and STILL win the game. Those are the teams "good enough" to play in the Super Bowl. The team that didn't win - for whatever reason - is not.

That's my whole point with respect to this conversation. Cowboys fans can argue all they want that we were "good enough" to play in the Super Bowl. But the fact remains if we were, we'd be playing. We're not. So we weren't. PERIOD!

That's reality, unless there's somewhere else in the universe where the Cowboys are playing in the Super Bowl after losing in the playoffs. But last time I checked, they don't play "almost good enough" bowls and pass them off as Super Bowls.

How often are you going to type "PERIOD!" I have half-a-mind to type ".!" in response.

I think some fans (not just Cowboys fans) can weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their teams objectively. Take this postseason's NFC fans for example. I do not think there are many Cardinals fans who would state their team could have reached and possibly won the Super Bowl this season. Their quarterback situation was beyond pathetic. On the other hand, I do believe Packer and Cowboy fans can make valid arguments for how their teams may have matched up with the Patriots and hypothesized how well their teams would have fared against New England.

Both fanbases witnessed their teams not only make the playoffs but made the divisional or championship rounds also. They saw their teams compete well against either the conference runner-up or NFC winner. They watched their teams commit preventable execution miscues and/or crucial officiating decisions negatively impact their advancing. In my opinion, both teams were good enough to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. In addition, I believe both teams had the potential of winning the Super Bowl.

No one knows who will win the Super Bowl. The winner will discover that answer Sunday night. At this moment, both teams are good enough to play in the title game. Only one team will hoist the Lombardi Sunday night though. That finality will not negate the eventual losing team's current qualification after-the-fact. It simply means the 2015 NFL season reached its conclusion.

FYI: The character following the word conclusion in the previous paragraph is just an ordinary period--not the kind requiring capitals and attached exclamation marks.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Actually, it's EXACTLY how reality works.

In reality, the teams who are good enough to be in the Super Bowl ARE in the Super Bowl. Unless, they have a Super Bowl for teams that get beat and don't qualify. Oh, yeah, they're called THE PLAYOFFS.

You don't have a leg to stand on. So you try to twist reality to comport to what you want it to be. But reality says the Seahawks and the Patriots are in the playoffs. Therefore, they're the only two teams, based on the present/real structure, that were good enough to make the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but reality doesn't change just because you want it to. If that's too nuanced for you, reality says, "I don't care."

P.S. I love how you, even in your argument to refute my point, underscore my point.

I get that you don't get it.

Life must suck in greyscale.

 

[tyke1doe]

How often are you going to type "PERIOD!" I have half-a-mind to type ".!" in response.

What? You don't like my PERIOD?

I think some fans (not just Cowboys fans) can weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their teams objectively. Take this postseason's NFC fans for example. I do not think there are many Cardinals fans who would state their team could have reached and possibly won the Super Bowl this season. Their quarterback situation was beyond pathetic. On the other hand, I do believe Packer and Cowboy fans can make valid arguments for how their teams may have matched up with the Patriots and hypothesized how well their teams would have fared against New England.

I don't disagree. But that's not the point I was addressing.

Both fanbases witnessed their teams not only make the playoffs but made the divisional or championship rounds also. They saw their teams compete well against either the conference runner-up or NFC winner. They watched their teams commit preventable execution miscues and/or crucial officiating decisions negatively impact their advancing. In my opinion, both teams were good enough to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. In addition, I believe both teams had the potential of winning the Super Bowl.

In your opinion being the operative word. However, opinions don't have to conform to reality. Facts do. And it's a fact we're not in the Super Bowl. Therefore, we weren't good enough. That's my point.

No one knows who will win the Super Bowl. The winner will discover that answer Sunday night. At this moment, both teams are good enough to play in the title game. Only one team will hoist the Lombardi Sunday night though. That finality will not negate the eventual losing team's current qualification after-the-fact. It simply means the 2015 NFL season reached its conclusion.

No, it won't disqualify the team as being good enough to make the Super Bowl. It will, however, disqualify the team as being good enough to win the Super Bowl. The winner is good enough to win it. The loser is not based on losing it.

FYI: The character following the word conclusion in the previous paragraph is just an ordinary period--not the kind requiring capitals and attached exclamation marks.

Oh, don't be jealous. You can use them too. I love the variety of language, and emoticons.

 

[tyke1doe]

I get that you don't get it.

Life must suck in greyscale.

Oh, I understand perfectly. This just aint an issue of gray matter, pardon the pun.

Life must indeed suck when you can't twist reality to make it say what you want.

 

[endersdragon]

No, we weren't. Otherwise, we would be playing in the Super Bowl.
Guess, what? The Green Bay Packers weren't good enough to play in the Super Bowl this year.
The only teams good enough to play in the Super Bowl are the teams that make it to the Super Bowl. Teams that don't make it aren't good enough.

Had the tiebreakers gone our way, and we didn't have a route the Super Bowl that took us through 2 of the toughest places to play in the league, and possibly instead brought to teams that suck on the road to Dallas... we could have easily been in the Super Bowl. Sadly, tiebreakers didn't go our way (despite us beating the #1 seed) so we had a far tougher schedule and couldn't overcome it anymore, well it and the Dez Bryant no catch call.

 

[tyke1doe]

Had the tiebreakers gone our way, and we didn't have a route the Super Bowl that took us through 2 of the toughest places to play in the league, and possibly instead brought to teams that suck on the road to Dallas... we could have easily been in the Super Bowl. Sadly, tiebreakers didn't go our way (despite us beating the #1 seed) so we had a far tougher schedule and couldn't overcome it anymore, well it and the Dez Bryant no catch call.

But we started the season understanding the tiebreaker rules. We knew what was at stake. We had to go to Green Bay and beat the Packers to get to the NFC Championship Game. We didn't.
We had to rely on a Dez no-catch call to possibly win the game when we had a 8 point lead in the second half. We had a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, and we couldn't get him to the ground.
The bottom line is we didn't get it done. Therefore, we weren't good enough to get to the NFC Championship let alone the Super Bowl.
Regret concentrates on "ifs." Reality doesn't.

 

[Rockport]

But we started the season understanding the tiebreaker rules. We knew what was at stake. We had to go to Green Bay and beat the Packers to get to the NFC Championship Game. We didn't.
We had to rely on a Dez no-catch call to possibly win the game when we had a 8 point lead in the second half. We had a hobbled Aaron Rodgers, and we couldn't get him to the ground.
The bottom line is we didn't get it done. Therefore, we weren't good enough to get to the NFC Championship let alone the Super Bowl.
Regret concentrates on "ifs." Reality doesn't.

You'd make a good politician because you are absolutely clueless with your black and white world.

 

[tyke1doe]

You'd make a good politician because you are absolutely clueless with your black and white world.

No, but I'd make a great REALITY television host.

I'm clueless, yet I'm the only one who can render a logic conclusion based on the evidence. Must be nice living in the Bizzaro universe.
"Mmmm, Cowboys LOSS. Qualify Super Bowl."

 

[endersdragon]

No, but I'd make a great REALITY television host.

I'm clueless, yet I'm the only one who can render a logic conclusion based on the evidence. Must be nice living in the Bizzaro universe.
"Mmmm, Cowboys LOSS. Qualify Super Bowl."

So by that logic the 18-1 Patriots weren't good enough to contend to be Super Bowl champs, because after all, they weren't Super Bowl champs.

 

[DallasEast]

What? You don't like my PERIOD?

Every tampon and panty liner commercial would prompt to answer no.

I don't disagree. But that's not the point I was addressing.

I know. Your point is that if a team wins they are qualified to play in the next round (or Super Bowl in this discussion) and if they lose they are not qualified. That is strict black and white interpretation that automatically devalues the relative strengths of a team in relation to their potential.

In your opinion being the operative word. However, opinions don't have to conform to reality. Facts do. And it's a fact we're not in the Super Bowl. Therefore, we weren't good enough. That's my point.

Yet, it is your opinion that your fact is nondebateable.

No one expects the team to win a real Lombardi trophy. The inquires posed asks if the team could have won if events had unfolded favorably for the team. In other words, a what if scenario. Why do you argue so strongly against a fictional argument?

No, it won't disqualify the team as being good enough to make the Super Bowl. It will, however, disqualify the team as being good enough to win the Super Bowl. The winner is good enough to win it. The loser is not based on losing it.

No one disputes the team not having an opportunity to win the Super Bowl. However, stating that the team is not a part of the equation does not eliminate the possibility that the team may have won if it had advanced to the Super Bowl.

Your fact (and reality) is based solely on a single elimination certainty. The discussion prompts members to ask what if that was not the case. Why is it wrong in your opinion for others to use their objectivity to speculate what the team might have done?

Oh, don't be jealous. You can use them too. I love the variety of language, and emoticons.

Jealousy? Don't tell me a period led you to that conclusion?

Just kidding.

 

[tyke1doe]

So by that logic the 18-1 Patriots weren't good enough to contend to be Super Bowl champs, because after all, they weren't Super Bowl champs.

No, they were good enough to CONTEND for the Super Bowl because they were IN the Super Bowl. They weren't good enough to win because they DIDN'T.

Had they been good enough to win, they would have won.

By the way, "good enough" implies that there is a standard by which one is being measured. The standard is the winner. The Giants were good enough to win because they won. And since there's only one winner, only one team can claim to be good enough.

I know you're trying to find a way to circumvent reality. But it's not going to work. Reality speaks with a clarity speculation can't.

Giants = Super Bowl winner = good enough.
Patriots (18-1) = Super Bowl losers = not good enough.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[tyke1doe]

Every tampon and panty liner commercial would prompt to answer no.I know. Your point is that if a team wins they are qualified to play in the next round (or Super Bowl in this discussion) and if they lose they are not qualified. That is strict black and white interpretation that automatically devalues the relative strengths of a team in relation to their potential.Yet, it is your opinion that your fact is nondebateable.

In a game that determines qualification based on whether you win, it is INDEED black and white. Winning as defined by one team having more points than the other team is black and white.

And anything can be debated. But my point is FACT because if you ask me the question, I point to the score and who moves on. When you're asked the question, you make other arguments which aren't based on winning and losing. The game of football is about winning and losing. And it is defined such that winning and losing is black and white. This isn't a church league where scores isn't kept and everyone wins a trophy. That's gray.

The reality of the NFL isn't that way. But you have an argument you're trying to win, so you'll force a square peg into a round hole and say it fits. Yet, everyone can see that it isn't a perfect fit. A square peg in a square hole fits.

And no matter how you want to massage or manipulate it, the fact remains that when we look at the Super Bowl, we see the teams good enough to play in the game. And good enough is determined by the teams that won and advanced to get there.

No one expects the team to win a real Lombardi trophy. The inquires posed asks if the team could have won if events had unfolded favorably for the team. In other words, a what if scenario. Why do you argue so strongly against a fictional argument?No one disputes the team not having an opportunity to win the Super Bowl. However, stating that the team is not a part of the equation does not eliminate the possibility that the team may have won if it had advanced to the Super Bowl.

In the realm of hypotheticals, anything goes. And that's an argument that's not based in reality.

Your fact (and reality) is based solely on a single elimination certainty. The discussion prompts members to ask what if that was not the case. Why is it wrong in your opinion for others to use their objectivity to speculate what the team might have done?Jealousy? Don't tell me a period led you to that conclusion?

Objectivity is not a matter of speculation when compared with fact. Objectivity deals with what is. This isn't comics where alternate universes exist.
I merely stated that the Cowboys weren't "good enough" to get to the Super Bowl because they didn't. Someone retorted. I offered my argument. They (you) offered yours. But your argument is based on speculation. My argument is based on reality.

I'm sorry if reality hurts.

 

[Rockport]

No, they were good enough to CONTEND for the Super Bowl because they were IN the Super Bowl. They weren't good enough to win because they DIDN'T.

Had they been good enough to win, they would have won.

By the way, "good enough" implies that there is a standard by which one is being measured. The standard is the winner. The Giants were good enough to win because they won. And since there's only one winner, only one team can claim to be good enough.

I know you're trying to find a way to circumvent reality. But it's not going to work. Reality speaks with a clarity speculation can't.

Giants = Super Bowl winner = good enough.
Patriots (18-1) = Super Bowl losers = not good enough.

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You need to go smoke a joint.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12179331/how-many-players-away-super-bowl-team

Checked out a bit of their methodology and it seems pretty sound... I would have to disagree and say we were 4 players away from contending next year, or 2 by their measurement (at least 2 new players on the d-line and 2 new players in the secondary, they were far kinder to Wilcox (who I think is an average SS... but when we need a FS he isn't that) and Melton (good through part of the year... but just not enough) than I would have been) but still... nice to see them say that we are that close. Though... reallly... Romo is not elite?

Ok, so next season we're officially screwed.

Every year they say we are Super Bowl Contenders we look like clowns and go 8-8. The one season they predicted us to be complete losers and go 4-12 we went 12-4.

 

[dogberry]

If we introduce the concept of error bars, does that open up the question?

This is easier for me if I don't include the Cowboys. I care too much.