NFC Playoff wins since 1997 = 16

[Ultra Warrior]

Actually, the difference is this: The Steelers have been a perennial contender in recent seasons, and have a Super Bowl victory within the past five years. Conversely, the Lions, like the Cowboys, have not won a playoff game within the past decade, and have no Super Bowls wins.

The only difference here is history & how far BACK you want to go. Steelers won a Championship a few years ago but means nothing right NOW. If they go on to WIN it this season, THAT means something NOW. If they don't, they still end the season NOW a Loser just like the Lions. Only 1 team WINS per season.

So basically what you're saying is if we can't win the Super Bowl every year, we might as well not even go to the playoff?

And, to further use your extreme example, we might as well go 0-16 because, in the final analysis, if we go 13-3 and don't go to the Super Bowl we're as much losers as the Lions.

Is this your position?

Every teams GOAL is to WIN the Super Bowl. Not LOSE one or LOSE in the Playoffs. If you don't reach that GOAL, the season is a waste. Getting close doesn't do anything. Ask the Bills. What you are talking about are REGULAR season games. Once the Playoffs start, they mean NOTHING. Those who get in all start out 0-0. If you LOSE, you join the REST of the LOSERS in the NFL. You want to debate the LEVEL of Loser. The end result is still the Cowboys aren't the World champs & neither are the rest of the teams who Lost in the playoffs/Super Bowl.

This is one of the dumber things said today. If you honestly think whichever team loses the Super Bowl will have the same outlook as the Detroit Lions, you are clinically ********.

Context matters.

P.S. And I see Tyke1 has the same thoughts - sometimes, one should undergo a thought exercise before opening ones mouth...

Perhaps you should visit the psych ward yourself there, Corky. Lion fans are upset that they didn't WIN a game. Cowboys fans are upset that they didn't WIN to get in or Win a Playoff game. BOTH should be upset that SOME OTHER TEAM will be World Champs & not US.

P.S
Enjoy that exercise while thinking up another witty retort that will fail just as badly as the last.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The only difference here is history & how far BACK you want to go. Steelers won a Championship a few years ago but means nothing right NOW. If they go on to WIN it this season, THAT means something NOW. If they don't, they still end the season NOW a Loser just like the Lions. Only 1 team WINS per season.

Oh, contraire.

It means quite a bit right NOW. It means the Steelers are still playing and still challenging for the Super Bowl while the Lions aren't. It also demonstrates that teams with post season success are far more likely to challenge for Super Bowls than those without.

 

[masomenos]

Including today's Eagles game.

Eagles = 9
Giants = 5
Commanders = 2
Cowboys = 0

Ok, 12 years. Lets see what the 12 years before 1997 looked like.

Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 10
Giants = 8
Eagles = 2

Notice how that list is the inverse of the past 12 years? Think that success in the NFL may be cyclical?

And the 24 year win totals?

Giants = 13
Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 12
Eagles = 11

Pretty balanced huh?

 

[Venger]

Perhaps you should visit the psych ward yourself there, Corky. Lion fans are upset that they didn't WIN a game. Cowboys fans are upset that they didn't WIN to get in or Win a Playoff game. BOTH should be upset that SOME OTHER TEAM will be World Champs & not US.

You just invalidated your own point. "If our season doesn't end with another Lombardi it was a wasted season, no matter what the record was." But here you set up a clear distinction between the teams BASED ON HOW MANY WINS THEY HAD. Why are Lions fans pissed if it doesn't "matter what the record was"...?

Enjoy that exercise while thinking up another witty retort that will fail just as badly as the last.

No witty retort is needed to lunacy - I quote again your inane statement "If our season doesn't end with another Lombardi it was a wasted season, no matter what the record was." This statement is asinine - you argue for an equivalence between 0-16 and losing in the Super Bowl. The Cowboy teams that lost to Pittsburgh were surely disappointed, but they, nor their fans, were so addleminded as to think that they might as well have gone 0-16, or that the season, and everyone's time, was wasted.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

Oh, contraire.

It means quite a bit right NOW. It means the Steelers are still playing and still challenging for the Super Bowl while the Lions aren't. It also demonstrates that teams with post season success are far more likely to challenge for Super Bowls than those without.

Did the Steelers win LAST season? NO. Did they win the season before that? NO. They ended their season LOSERS. What they did a few years ago means nothing more NOW than what Dallas did a decade ago. Steelers still have a shot NOW to WIN the Super Bowl BUT what if they don't? They celebrate that they got close OR are disappointed that they didn't FINISH what they set out to do? Do you think the Patriots last season gave a rats *** about those 18 wins in a row AFTER they lost that 1 game at the end? I wouldn't.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Ok, 12 years. Lets see what the 12 years before 1997 looked like.

Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 10
Giants = 8
Eagles = 2

Notice how that list is the inverse of the past 12 years? Think that success in the NFL may be cyclical?

And the 24 year win totals?

Giants = 13
Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 12
Eagles = 11

Pretty balanced huh?

NFL success is indeed cyclical, but we must understand the nature of those cycles. Twelve years is more than enough time to garner a few playoff wins. In fact, several teams have cycled up and down multiple times since the Cowboys last won a playoff game.

Furthermore, none of the organizations listed above has been static over the past 24 years. All have experienced considerable turnover in their coaching staffs and their management.

Also, it's no fluke that certain teams are consistently more competitive than other teams. For instance, teams such as Pittsburgh cycle to the top far more frequently than teams such as Arizona.

 

[Aikbach]

Ok, 12 years. Lets see what the 12 years before 1997 looked like.

Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 10
Giants = 8
Eagles = 2

Notice how that list is the inverse of the past 12 years? Think that success in the NFL may be cyclical?

And the 24 year win totals?

Giants = 13
Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 12
Eagles = 11

Pretty balanced huh?

Quit using math, it hurts my head!

 

[Ultra Warrior]

You just invalidated your own point. "If our season doesn't end with another Lombardi it was a wasted season, no matter what the record was." But here you set up a clear distinction between the teams BASED ON HOW MANY WINS THEY HAD. Why are Lions fans pissed if it doesn't "matter what the record was"...?

They don't END their season CHAMPS.

No witty retort is needed to lunacy - I quote again your inane statement "If our season doesn't end with another Lombardi it was a wasted season, no matter what the record was." This statement is asinine - you argue for an equivalence between 0-16 and losing in the Super Bowl. The Cowboy teams that lost to Pittsburgh were surely disappointed, but they, nor their fans, were so addleminded as to think that they might as well have gone 0-16, or that the season, and everyone's time, was wasted.

Answer this question: Does a team who wins NO GAMES & a team who LOSES the Super Bowl end the season the World Champion OR do they BOTH end the season LOSERS? This should be pretty easy.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Did the Steelers win LAST season? NO. Did they win the season before that? NO. They ended their season LOSERS. What they did a few years ago means nothing more NOW than what Dallas did a decade ago. Steelers still have a shot NOW to WIN the Super Bowl BUT what if they don't? They celebrate that they got close OR are disappointed that they didn't FINISH what they set out to do? Do you think the Patriots last season gave a rats *** about those 18 wins in a row AFTER they lost that 1 game at the end? I wouldn't.

What if they do? A team can only win the Super Bowl if it gives itself the opportunity to do so. The Steelers have. The Lions didn't. Can you truly discern no difference between state of the Steelers organization and the state of Lions organization? Can you not see that the Steelers have a better chance of winning the Super now and in the near future than the Lions based on playoff performance?

 

[Venger]

Ok, 12 years. Lets see what the 12 years before 1997 looked like.

Cowboys = 12
Commanders = 10
Giants = 8
Eagles = 2

Notice how that list is the inverse of the past 12 years? Think that success in the NFL may be cyclical?

Cyclical based on what? What has accounted for the Cowboys winning cycle, and now their losing cycle? If we wait and do nothing, how will this "cycle" manage to suddenly cause us to win, and our opponents to fail?

Tell you what about your cycle, put the Arizona Cardinals back in, and post your numbers - where is Arizona's cycle? Uh oh. They don't get a cycle, huh? Why not? Why aren't they part of your balance? Do you think winning is simply a function of waiting for time to pass for our deserved cyclical uptick?

 

[Aikbach]

Cyclical based on what? What has accounted for the Cowboys winning cycle, and now their losing cycle? If we wait and do nothing, how will this "cycle" manage to suddenly cause us to win, and our opponents to fail?

Tell you what about your cycle, put the Arizona Cardinals back in, and post your numbers - where is Arizona's cycle? Uh oh. They don't get a cycle, huh? Why not? Why aren't they part of your balance? Do you think winning is simply a function of waiting for time to pass for our deserved cyclical uptick?

You know the cycle I liked? 1992-1995, that was a sweet cycle.

Not to be cheeky but I'm waiting for Dallas to get their cycle again.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

What if they do? A team can only win the Super Bowl if it gives itself the opportunity to do so. The Steelers have. The Lions didn't. Can you truly discern no difference between state of the Steelers organization and the state of Lions organization? Can you not see that the Steelers have a better chance of winning the Super now and in the near future than the Lions based on playoff performance?

Having a chance doesn't mean they will cash in on that chance. We are dealing with "What if" every season. When the "What if" becomes a FACT then there's reason to celebrate.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Having a chance doesn't mean they will cash in on that chance. We are dealing with "What if" every season. When the "What if" becomes a FACT then there's reason to celebrate.

Not having a chance means they won't win the Super Bowl at all. Some teams give themselves better chances than others, and some teams give themselves very little chance.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

Not having a chance means they won't win the Super Bowl at all. Some teams give themselves better chances than others, and some teams give themselves very little chance.

If they lose, they join everyone else. ( minus 1 team ) That's the point I'm making.

 

[Venger]

They don't END their season CHAMPS.


Answer this question: Does a team who wins NO GAMES & a team who LOSES the Super Bowl end the season the World Champion OR do they BOTH end the season LOSERS? This should be pretty easy.

Their seasons end, their seasons ARE NOT EQUAL. Which is what YOU posited. The teams ARE NOT EQUAL, they share ONE trait, not winning the Super Bowl. Yours is a false analogy. The earth is round, a ball is round, they ARE NOT EQUAL. Your absurd reductionism is what is drawing derision, and the longer your belabor this singular absurdity, the more left field it becomes.

 

[Venger]

You know the cycle I liked? 1992-1995, that was a sweet cycle.

Not to be cheeky but I'm waiting for Dallas to get their cycle again.

I think we could call it a tricycle. Yes. I am very ready for another.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

Their seasons end, their seasons ARE NOT EQUAL.

If neither team won the Super Bowl, both teams end EQUAL on NOT winning the Super Bowl.

 

[Venger]

If they lose, they join everyone else. ( minus 1 team ) That's the point I'm making.

It's a point you are belaboring, and "join everyone else" is also a specious statement, since it implies a set equality of no value for any purpose whatsoever. What value does "did not win Super Bowl" have for any valid analysis? Since the Lions didn't win, and the Cowboys didn't win, does their shared lack of a Lombardi trophy have any analytical value whatsoever? No, not in the least. And your statement that it does not matter WHAT their record, not winning the Super Bowl is the only relevant factor, is utter nincompoopery.

If neither team won the Super Bowl, both teams end EQUAL on NOT winning the Super Bowl.

They are not equal, not in the least unless operating with absurd pedantic reductionism, you clearly have reduced your football argument to If X(SuperBowlWin)=0 and Y(SuperBowlWin)=0 and Then X=Y which is an absurd analogy. No discussion is apparently going to aid you, so this horse, at this point is dead. We led it to water, we can't make it think.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

It's a point you are belaboring, and "join everyone else" is also a specious statement, since it implies a set equality of no value for any purpose whatsoever. What value does "did not win Super Bowl" have for any valid analysis? Since the Lions didn't win, and the Cowboys didn't win, does their shared lack of a Lombardi trophy have any analytical value whatsoever? No, not in the least. And your statement that it does not matter WHAT their record, not winning the Super Bowl is the only relevant factor, is utter nincompoopery.

So by your logic, Owners just want their team to do ok every year & it doesn't matter if they win the Super Bowl so long as they get CLOSE it's good enough?

 

[Ultra Warrior]

They are not equal, not in the least unless operating with absurd pedantic reductionism, you clearly have reduced your football argument to If X(SuperBowlWin)=0 and Y(SuperBowlWin)=0 and Then X=Y which is an absurd analogy. No discussion is apparently going to aid you, so this horse, at this point is dead. We led it to water, we can't make it think.

I think the water you speak of, you drowned yourself in an hour ago. Giddy up.