Stash
Staff member
- Messages
- 78,370
- Reaction score
- 102,302
In thousands of nfl games as data, 12% is a ton
It's official, you are terrible at math.
In thousands of nfl games as data, 12% is a ton
Sure prognosticators can be wrong about particular SB-caliber teams but it doesn’t take away from there consistently being more than 2 SB-caliber teams on year to year basis.
Giants were 9-7 in 2009 and won the SB after upsetting a 15-1 defending SB champion GB team with Aaron Rodgers.
does that mean the Packers weren’t a SB caliber team?
of course not. That’s absurd.
those are my words
and these are your words:
Now show me at any point where I disputed my first quote
but as I said before, it’s relative. It doesn’t matter how we look, you could say we looked worse than you last year. But we moved on To the second season while you sat on the couch. Looking Worse or looking better doesnt win football games.
It's official, you are terrible at math.
Need anything else?
Let me guess, it's 'different' when it comes to your team...
As an FYI, I don't believe that any team has ever started the season 0-4 and went to the Super Bowl. I mean, is it impossible? No, it is mathematically possible but not really.
Super Bowl caliber can mean they’re really good. But what if 5 teams are Super Bowl caliber? 10 teams? What if in a fluke year 15 teams are playing out of their mind. Would you entertain 15 super bowl caliber franchises? At some point is just becomes a silly term people throw around for whatever reason.
conversely, you can win without being anywhere near Super Bowl caliber, the teams around you just have to be worse than you. Can that not make you super bowl caliber as well?
SB-caliber SHOULD be defined as winning enough games against your competition to give you a favorable chance to make the SB.
By your reasoning a team could be 16-0 going into the playoffs, yet if some subjective observer determines their opponents all sucked (using what standard exactly?) they wouldn’t be a SB caliber team.
again, every year multiple teams have realistic chances of winning the SB based on prior years success. This list of teams can change as the season progresses. However going into the playoffs there are generally multiple SB-caliber teams that have plausible paths to the championship.
are you honestly arguing this? Like are you saying that every year there are only two SB-caliber teams?
That’s a post hoc rationalization fallacy and is a huge red flag that you’re just a ******* troll lmao
here’s some math for you: 12% is approximately 1 in 8. There are currently 11 0-2 teams, so by that standard 1, if not 2 are potentially playoff bound. Philly has just as good a shot as the others. Better than some even.
no that wasn’t my reasoning, my reasoning is there’s nothing definable about being Super Bowl caliber any more than just being a team that’s good at winning football games. No need to name call
What part? Where you said I double talked when you actually know I didn’t? You’re saying I’d let that slide if I were a cowboys fan?
12%.
And let's face it, you've managed to stumble through an easy early schedule that should have set you up for a good record - starting with a bad Washington team still trying to figure things out, and then a home game against the Rams. Your schedule only gets tougher from here. You can fool yourself about it, but not me.
and what other definitional standard would you use to define a SB-caliber team?
It’s NECESSARILY a part of the definition that a SB-caliber is a “really good team at winning football games”.
You like arguing semantics don’t you?
Heard the same thing through 3 games last year. “Cowboys took care of the easy teams and eagles couldn’t, this division is a wrap.”
The part where you falsely claimed the Cowboys "looked worse" and then tried to claim that "looking better or worse didn't matter". Your hypocrisy is showing.
Or are you reduced to blatant trolling at this point?
If I’m arguing semantics then you are too, I can’t argue it with myself.
I define teams by what they do, not what they maybe might or might not do. So I don’t define that term at all because it’s empty words
Lol ok.
So how would you define the 2011 15-1 Packers and 9-7 Giants going into the playoffs?
Hey look! Another team badly overpaid a QB, leaving them with little depth and as a result they look terrible. Therefore, we should happily give Dak an even bigger contract.