NFC Playoff wins since 1997 = 16

[Venger]

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?

First, my logic is only arguing that going 18-1 like New England last year is NOT EQUAL to the Lions going 0-16 this year. That is ALL it is arguing. Anyone notice we had our first 16-0 regular season team followed immediately by the first 0-16 team? Just noticin'...

To the words you put in my mouth, I would say this - owners want PROGRESS toward winning it all every year. The 1-15 Dolphins of last year had ZERO real expectation of winning a Super Bowl this year. While their goal is to play to win, every game (Detroit's goal, by the way), their season THIS year will be judged by them, their fans, and reasonable analysts, as VERY successful. But, they didn't win the Super Bowl. Hey, 0-16? You're just like the Dolphins. Should these teams think of themselves in these terms? Do you think they do? You've argued here that since the Dolphins didn't win it all, and the Lions didn't win it all, there is logically valuable equivalence. I say there is not.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

Mr. Ed!!! You've returned!!!

 

[Venger]

Oh, since the other thread got closed, never let it be said I don't admit an error - apparently, that Cincy board was real - the text looked Photoshoppy like those other humor billboards do, but apparently, my eyes decieved, and it's real - mea culpa, I obviously saw it wrong.

 

[masomenos]

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 asked a lot of questions, but I'm just going to give one answer.

The law of averages accounts for both normal and abnormal cycles. Winning is, largely, just a matter of time. So much goes into winning in the NFL and to win big, in the playoffs, a lot of things have to come together. You have to have the talent on the team, the right coaches, the right GM to assemble the talent, the right opponents, the right luck with injuries, etc. Over time, those things all fall into place for most teams. Some teams will win a lot more and some teams will win a lot less. It's not that teams just win because it is their time, it is just that most teams do win over time.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

You asked a lot of questions, but I'm just going to give one answer.

The law of averages accounts for both normal and abnormal cycles. Winning is, largely, just a matter of time. So much goes into winning in the NFL and to win big, in the playoffs, a lot of things have to come together. You have to have the talent on the team, the right coaches, the right GM to assemble the talent, the right opponents, the right luck with injuries, etc. Over time, those things all fall into place for most teams. Some teams will win a lot more and some teams will win a lot less. It's not that teams just win because it is their time, it is just that most teams do win over time.

 

[soccerbud]

ultra warrior, you seem to have binary way of evaluating a team's season.
The teamis either a winner and wins a a superbowl or the team is a loser like 30 other teams. More specifically, if the team goes 12-4 but loses the championship game, that team is a loser just like some crappy, bottom feeder team (e.g. the 0-16 lions) that didn't even come close of sniffing the playoffs. Both teams' seasons are as wasted as each other's.

By that logic, the 2007, 16-0 patriots is just as much of a loser as the 0-16 2008 lions. And the 2007, 16-0 patriots wasted their season much like the 2008, 0-16 detroit lions has wasted away their. Frankly, I believe you are the only person on planet earth who subscribe to such a view.

Most of us evaluates our teams and seasons with a much finer grain of resolution.

 

[masomenos]

ultra warrior, you seem to have binary way of evaluating a team's season.
The teamis either a winner and wins a a superbowl or the team is a loser like 30 other teams. More specifically, if the team goes 12-4 but loses the championship game, that team is a loser just like some crappy, bottom feeder team (e.g. the 0-16 lions) that didn't even come close of sniffing the playoffs. Both teams' seasons are as wasted as each other's.

By that logic, the 2007, 16-0 patriots is just as much of a loser as the 0-16 2008 lions. And the 2007, 16-0 patriots wasted their season much like the 2008, 0-16 detroit lions has wasted away their. Frankly, I believe you are the only person on planet earth who subscribe to such a view.

Most of us evaluates our teams and seasons with a much finer grain of resolution.

Bingo.

 

[Ultra Warrior]

By that logic, the 2007, 16-0 patriots is just as much of a loser as the 0-16 2008 lions. And the 2007, 16-0 patriots wasted their season much like the 2008, 0-16 detroit lions has wasted away their.

Both of those teams won WHAT? Lions won NOTHING & the Patriots won a bunch of games that meant NOTHING because the one they did lose is the one that MATTERED. Thus both teams seasons END on a LOSING note.

 

[Juke99]

How do ya like my new sig?

 

[Ultra Warrior]

How do ya like my new sig?

Good job.

 

[bigE79]

Including today's Eagles game.

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

And,how many SB WINS came from that bunch...ill make it easy for you...1! It seems that there are a lot of CHOKERS on your list:starspin

 

[zrinkill]

Now post how many SuperBowl Champs are from the NFC since the Cowboys last won a Superbowl.

I am sure its a huge number .........


Oh wait ...... its 4

nevermind.

 

[bigE79]

Now post how many SuperBowl Champs are from the NFC since the Cowboys last won a Superbowl.

I am sure its a huge number .........


Oh wait ...... its 4

nevermind.

:laugh2:

 

[gmb85]

Gee, with all the talent Jerra assembles every year you'd think they would win at least 1 playoff game. I'm sure Fumblina and his crew will get the job done next year.

 

[Venger]

You asked a lot of questions, but I'm just going to give one answer.

The law of averages accounts for both normal and abnormal cycles. Winning is, largely, just a matter of time. So much goes into winning in the NFL and to win big, in the playoffs, a lot of things have to come together. You have to have the talent on the team, the right coaches, the right GM to assemble the talent, the right opponents, the right luck with injuries, etc. Over time, those things all fall into place for most teams. Some teams will win a lot more and some teams will win a lot less. It's not that teams just win because it is their time, it is just that most teams do win over time.

I think the clearest way to refute your case here is to examine the Super Bowl odds at any point in time - if winning is cyclical and a matter of time, then the best odds should go to teams like Arizona, because they are "due". But the best odds don't, because winning isn't caused by a backscatter effect of random choice, it is not random nor subject to an increase or decrease in odds due to past results.

Note, the refutation only applies to the cyclical notion of what you are proposing - because to argue for the cycle is to argue that the Cowboys are "due" to win, because their "cycle" should be in ascendancy. Because the Cowboys, lost, then won, then lost, does not mean in any way the Cowboys should be now expected to win.

 

[BourbonBalz]

So how long did it take us to win from our 2nd super victory till our 3rd?

At least we used to be in the playoffs practically EVERY year, and we normally won at least one playoff game each year. Like someone else said, you simply weren't around during the glory years of the 70's and early 80's. Cowboy fans during that time period KNEW we were going to be in the playoffs EVERY damn year and that's when only 4 teams from each conference even made the playoffs. How things have changed.

 

[kingwhicker]

Who cares? We can't win every year and we had to re build.....

LOL, it takes a decade and a half to build a winner!

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

LOL, it takes a decade and a half to build a winner!

You cannot rush greatness!!!! :laugh2:

 

[Bach]

LOL, it takes a decade and a half to build a winner!

Yeah, really.

Why hire a qualified GM when we can have Jerry take a decade and a half to learn on the job?

 

[wileedog]

Both of those teams won WHAT? Lions won NOTHING & the Patriots won a bunch of games that meant NOTHING because the one they did lose is the one that MATTERED. Thus both teams seasons END on a LOSING note.

I don't know why you watch football, or what you get from the game, but personally its entertainment for me.

Its far more entertaining for my team to be competitive, make the playoffs, win a few games and go to the Superbowl just to come up short than it would be if they went 0-16. At least I know barring disaster my team is probably in the hunt again next year.

There has been very little enjoyment watching Jerry Jones the last 12 years drive what was a premiere franchise in the NFL into the ground.

And 12 years is not a 'cycle' for those spinning that nonsense. Its several cycles over, especially in the free agency era when a billionaire like Jones can go out and get a $50M RG. Look what Atlanta and Miami did in ONE year.