Perfect storm awaiting? NYG knocks off Philly

[Romo_To_Dez]

I stopped putting my hope in having other teams beat the Eagles. But Any Given Sunday sometimes and we have to rely on either the Giants playing above themselves due to no one giving them a chance in this game or Philly coming in overconfident and not taking the Giants seriously enough where the Giants keep the game close and gives themselves a chance to win the game late in the game.

 

[meddleroidz]

giants have now an injured S Barkley lol...god is with the eagles since day 1 this year.

 

[meddleroidz]

Still irrelevant.
Beagles have 1.
Cowboys have 5.

wanna talk from 1933? eagles have 4 championships not 1. you're beat on your own game LMAO

 

[Shane612]

wanna talk from 1933? eagles have 4 championships not 1. you're beat on your own game LMAO

We're talking super bowls.
So again, you're irrelevant.

 

[_sturt_]

(Math says whole lot easier to win a championship in a league of 10-15 teams than a league of 24-32 teams, of course.)

 

[sandbridge77]

(Math says whole lot easier to win a championship in a league of 10-15 teams than a league of 24-32 teams, of course.)

so all the champions, in all the sports prior to expansion don’t matter, ok

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

(Math says whole lot easier to win a championship in a league of 10-15 teams than a league of 24-32 teams, of course.)

NFL has added 4 teams since the cowboys last won…. Does that mean Philadelphia’s SB is worth more than any of Dallas’ by your standard?

 

[IslandCowboy]

Not gonna happen because Philly is actually good.

 

[_sturt_]

so all the champions, in all the sports prior to expansion don’t matter, ok

One of the surest signs that someone wants to defeat a line of logic but doesn't have the substance to defeat it is when the choice is made to re-word the assertion/conclusion offered so that it somehow reflects better on their opinion... it's a form of strawman... and it's absurdity to the extreme.

No. What I said is what I said.

Look, I get it that... because it's irrefutable to say if you double the numbers of competitors, it waters down the talent inventory and creates additional hurdles for any given group of talent (aka, team) to run the regular and post season gauntlet to get to the big prize... then you'd choose to modify that to "no champions previous to year 19XX matter."

But the former is accurate, and the latter is not.

 

[sandbridge77]

One of the surest signs that someone wants to defeat a line of logic but doesn't have the substance to defeat it is when the choice is made to re-word the assertion/conclusion offered so that it somehow reflects better on their opinion... it's a form of strawman... and it's absurdity to the extreme.



No. What I said is what I said.

Look, I get it that... because it's irrefutable to say if you double the numbers of competitors, it waters down the talent inventory and creates additional hurdles for any given group of talent (aka, team) to run the regular and post season gauntlet to get to the big prize... then you'd choose to modify that to "no champions previous to year 19XX matter."

But the former is accurate, and the latter is not.

Sorry not buying it’s more difficult because of more teams and diluted talent, fewer talented teams is just as difficult if not more.

 

[_sturt_]

NFL has added 4 teams since the cowboys last won…. Does that mean Philadelphia’s SB is worth more than any of Dallas’ by your standard?

"Worth" more? That's an interesting adjective.

(First, just for accuracy's sake, there were 30 teams in 1995... and, getting to the point, is a championship "worth" more in 2017 than 1995...)

"Worth" is somewhat more subjective than I'd prefer to use--depends on how meaningful it is to a given person making the assessment, so a moving target.

The term that comes to my mind, for now, is a phrase... "more legitimized by greater rigor."

Well, let's go to the math, shall we?

There were/are 6.67% more teams in 2017 (when PHI won their last Super Bowl) than 1995 (when DAL won their last SB).

There were/are 130.76% more teams in 1995 (when DAL won their last SB) than 1960 (when PHI won their last NFL championship, pre-SB).



Fair conclusion: Worth more, no, but more legitimate because of the greater rigor, yes.

 

[blueblood70]

Im kinda tired of hearing about Philly on this forum.

Just keep winning and it doesn’t matter what happens with other teams.

amen Brotha the drool is real..sick of it..

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Well played!!!! You win the internet!!

 

[_sturt_]

Sorry not buying it’s more difficult because of more teams and diluted talent, fewer talented teams is just as difficult if not more.

Free country. I'm not the boss of you.

But it stands to reason that... (a) the more you dilute the talent base that everyone is drawing from the more equivalent the teams become because the top of the pyramid elite talent can't be as coalesced in fewer teams, and (b) more teams routinely means more games, both regular season and post season... that on its face makes it more difficult to be that team that ends up winning the holy grail.

But/and even if you refuse to go there, what you cannot get around logically is... here we go again... math, and more specifically probability.

In a system where only one team can win the trophy, the probability (by the statistical definition) for a team to win in a 13 team league is 1/13, which is on its face a stronger probability than a 30 team league (1/30).

But again... I'm not the boss of you. Believe what you want.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

"Worth" more? That's an interesting adjective.

(First, just for accuracy's sake, there were 30 teams in 1995... and, getting to the point, is a championship "worth" more in 2017 than 1995...)

"Worth" is somewhat more subjective than I'd prefer to use--depends on how meaningful it is to a given person making the assessment, so a moving target.

The term that comes to my mind, for now, is a phrase... "more legitimized by greater rigor."

Well, let's go to the math, shall we?

There were/are 6.67% more teams in 2017 (when PHI won their last Super Bowl) than 1995 (when DAL won their last SB).

There were/are 56.67% more teams in 1995 (when DAL won their last SB) than 1960 (when PHI won their last NFL championship, pre-SB).



Fair conclusion: Worth more, no, but more legitimate because of the greater rigor, yes.

Reduced legitimacy? Okay, we’ll go with your wording. Would you also say that if the modern champion is the bar set, anything less than, even if only 7%, could be correctly described as… illegitimate?

 

[_sturt_]

Reduced legitimacy? Okay, we’ll go with your wording. Would you also say that if the modern champion is the bar set, anything less than, even if only 7%, could be correctly described as… illegitimate?

Not sure I'm tracking with the precise thing you're imagining, but it doesn't really matter... it's not a matter of black or white, legitimate or illegitimate... it's a matter of more legitimate or less legitimate as a function of the rigor it required to obtain the desired result... degrees of legitimacy.



Typo alert: By the way, my quick math above was erroneous. Adding 2 teams beyond 30 is equal to adding 6.67%, but adding 17 teams beyond 13... which are the right numbers I should have been plugging-in... is 130.76%. My bad.

 

[sandbridge77]

When you play all the teams in the league and win a championship that’s as legitimate as it can get, playing half the teams in the league is obviously easier depending on the schedule, but like you said your welcome to your own opinion.

 

[dmq]

Giants are going to be without Leonard Williams, McKinney and Adoree. Not the same defense without them. I don’t see the Giants OL doing well against the Eagles front either. Eagles will roll them. Giants season is over.

 

[Praxit]

Giants are going to be without Leonard Williams, McKinney and Adoree. Not the same defense without them. I don’t see the Giants OL doing well against the Eagles front either. Eagles will roll them. Giants season is over.

...well crap, that's not good. Might be a game where D. Jones has to make plays with his legs.

 

[_sturt_]

that’s as legitimate as it can get,

It is. We agree. As long, that is, as we're just looking at that season in a vacuum.

The original premise was to suggest something different... that we consider comparing champions of different seasons.

Hence, the suggestion that it's smarter to think in terms of degrees of legitimacy, based on the math and the obvious different contexts.