DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 The scoring is up for debate, you get rewarded more for making it to a superbowl and losing than a lot of things which makes the Bills look pretty good.I still think it's flawed in the fact that Giants have *won* two Super Bowls(if not more, can't remember off the top of my head) and aren't ahead of the Vikings ZERO Super Bowls. Say what you want about the Bills, their dominance in the AFC was pretty astounding. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I still think it's flawed in the fact that Giants have *won* two Super Bowls(if not more, can't remember off the top of my head) and aren't ahead of the Vikings ZERO Super Bowls. Say what you want about the Bills, their dominance in the AFC was pretty astounding.Well it rewards consistently making the playoffs too, something the vikings have done at double the rate of the giants in the Superbowl era. According to it the Vikings are only one point ahead of the Giants. So the Superbowl wins for the Giants are balancing out with the consistently good (but not good enough to win it all) Vikings.I don't have a problem with the Bills, they were one of the best teams to not win a Superbowl. I really liked Thurman Thomas. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Well it rewards consistently making the playoffs too, something the vikings have done at double the rate of the giants in the Superbowl era. According to it the Vikings are only one point ahead of the Giants. So the Superbowl wins for the Giants are balancing out with the consistently good (but not good enough to win it all) Vikings.I don't have a problem with the Bills, they were one of the best teams to not win a Superbowl. I really liked Thurman Thomas.I dunno know..I mean, I guess I kinda like rewarding consistency..but then again, how are the Bucs EVER gonna catch up? Any team can make the playoffs every year just to lose their first gameaijsdf;lasdjfa;sdhasdflk;jsadfCOWBOYSasdlk;hsdf;kljadfhs;.. Sorry, I sneezed and don't feel like deleting all that..but to win a Super Bowl means you're THE BEST team in the league that year, no arguments, no bitching, straight up. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 It's not a list of Superbowl winners though, its a way to measure how consistent a franchise is. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 It's not a list of Superbowl winners though, its a way to measure how consistent a franchise is.Then why are the Cowboys #1? They've gone 12 years without a playoff win.. That's 2/7th's(MORE THAN 25% OF THE YEARS!!) of the allotted time. I thought it was listing overall greatness begining with Super Bowl I. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Then why are the Cowboys #1? They've gone 12 years without a playoff win.. That's 2/7th's(MORE THAN 25% OF THE YEARS!!) of the allotted time. I thought it was listing overall greatness begining with Super Bowl I.So your changing it to a list of what have you done for me the last 12 years?Did you read how the rankings worked? It's a really simple system (probably too simple in fact), so your either trying to start an argument for no reason or you just looked at pretty pictures of football helmets and looked for reasons to complain the Packers aren't #1. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 So your changing it to a list of what have you done for me the last 12 years?Did you read how the rankings worked? It's a really simple system (probably too simple in fact), so your either trying to start an argument for no reason or you just looked at pretty pictures of football helmets and looked for reasons to complain the Packers aren't #1.LOL @ you. At what point did I mention the Packers or that they deserved a higher spot, let alone the number one spot? But if it's about consistency a 12 year drought doesn't seem to bode real well. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 LOL @ you. At what point did I mention the Packers or that they deserved a higher spot, let alone the number one spot? But if it's about consistency a 12 year drought doesn't seem to bode real well.I figured you saying the packers were underrated was just a matter of time.You clearly didn't read how a team earned points, you get points for making the playoffs. In other words this 12 year drought you like to bring up, isn't actually a 12 year drought because the Cowboys have been to the playoffs in that time frame. Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 So you have a problem with Oakland and SF being that high too? I was really surprised GB was that low though, and the author is even a Packers fan Link to post Share on other sites
tskillz187 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Seeing as I know very litte of this offseason so far because I've been so busy, I'm going to make my wish list for the Eagles.Get rid of McNabb. Somehow find replacement that isn't named Feeley or Kolb but is better. Garcia, we're sorry. Come back.Land 1 big time WR. Detroit has claimed that Roy Roy is up for grabs. We said we want Moss. I'd rather Get Roy, Fitz, or Boldin and 2 out of the 3 should be up for the taking and be cheaper. Draft a FS and SS and CBs, we're getting older there. Keeping JR Reed at SS would be an improvement in my book, he played great at the end of the yr.I think we only need very small tweaks and a WR. Obv keeping McNabb would generally be fine except for my extreme hatred of him. I can't think of a replacement that is a vet that could be gotten though...Derek Anderson/Kyle Boller/Trent Dilfer/Charlie Batch? Just thinking out loud. That Gray dude from Jville seemed okay, but clearly there aren't a lot of options here. I wish there was some kind of possibility to land Kitna, which is pretty sad. I've always liked Pennington, but I've never had to actually root for him and his 8mph 10yd passing game, which might slowly drive me insane. Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I hope Philly gets rid of McNabb too. Maybe trade him to Miami? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I hope Philly gets rid of McNabb too. Maybe trade him to Miami?I would give you a 4th round pick, Cleo Lemon, and ten arepas. You guys will love that cuban delicacy, trust me. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I figured you saying the packers were underrated was just a matter of time.You clearly didn't read how a team earned points, you get points for making the playoffs. In other words this 12 year drought you like to bring up, isn't actually a 12 year drought because the Cowboys have been to the playoffs in that time frame.And that's why I think it's a silly ranking. If you're talking about being consistenly good, WINNING playoff games/Super Bowls should be weighted more heavily than simply making the playoffs. So you have a problem with Oakland and SF being that high too? I was really surprised GB was that low though, and the author is even a Packers fan Neither Oakland or SF has gone 12 years without a playoff win, like, ever. As far as him ranking the Packers? Meh... they had some really awful years pre-Favre. Their hallowed years were pre-merger so it's hard to complain. If they had made 3 Super Bowls under Favre, then I think they'd deserve a spot or two bump, but realistically, since he's talking since Super Bowl I, meh.. no worries. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 And that's why I think it's a silly ranking. If you're talking about being consistenly good, WINNING playoff games/Super Bowls should be weighted more heavily than simply making the playoffs.Well you cant give points accurately for playoff wins or current teams would rack up points faster than the older teams who navigated a smaller playoff field.Getting a point for making the playoffs makes sense as a sign of consistency, getting more points for the championship game makes sense etc etc...You can harp on 12 year play off win drought all you want, the number of superbowls more than makes up for it. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Well you cant give points accurately for playoff wins or current teams would rack up points faster than the older teams who navigated a smaller playoff field.Getting a point for making the playoffs makes sense as a sign of consistency, getting more points for the championship game makes sense etc etc...You can harp on 12 year play off win drought all you want, the number of superbowls more than makes up for it. Unless you're the Giants, Bucs, Ravens or anyone else..which is my point. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Unless you're the Giants, Bucs, Ravens or anyone else..which is my point.They won 5 superbowls? I missed that.The teams with the most Superbowl appearances and wins are at the top of the list. The Cowboys have been to 8, winning 5 of them. Winning more than 10% of the superbowls in a league with 32 teams means they are winning way more than what they should on average.The Giants and Vikings are pretty much even, you do realize the Giants never made the playoffs till 81? The Vikings had 4 superbowl trips already at that point. Are you saying 1 superbowl win shows more consistency than a team who has 3x the trips to the playoffs and a more superbowl appearances? The vikings have been to the playoffs 14 more times, been in 3 more superbowls than the Bucs. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 They won 5 superbowls? I missed that.The teams with the most Superbowl appearances and wins are at the top of the list. The Cowboys have been to 8, winning 5 of them. Winning more than 10% of the superbowls in a league with 32 teams means they are winning way more than what they should on average.The Giants and Vikings are pretty much even, you do realize the Giants never made the playoffs till 81? The Vikings had 4 superbowl trips already at that point. Are you saying 1 superbowl win shows more consistency than a team who has 3x the trips to the playoffs and a more superbowl appearances? The vikings have been to the playoffs 14 more times, been in 3 more superbowls than the Bucs.1 Super Bowl Win > 10 Super Bowl Appearances, that's really my only point. Ask the Bills. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 1 Super Bowl Win > 10 Super Bowl Appearances, that's really my only point. Ask the Bills.Lightning can strike and a team can get hot at the right time and win the superbowl, then they fall off the NFL map. 1 superbowl win doesn't make you a great franchise. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Lightning can strike and a team can get hot at the right time and win the superbowl, then they fall off the NFL map. 1 superbowl win doesn't make you a great franchise.Neither does six. OHHHHHHH! Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Neither does six. OHHHHHHH!I don't know what this is even supposed to mean...I saw in the latest draft projections of the Boys don't move up they are projected to take Manningham in the first round, as much as we need a few more pieces on defense I think that would be a great addition to our aging receiving core. Link to post Share on other sites
*Lone*Trout* 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Look who just got much better..............Is T.O. ever gonna score against the Eagles?*L*T* Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Look who just got much better..............Is T.O. ever gonna score against the Eagles?*L*T*Weird addition, their secondary was already solid it's the pass rush they need to strengthen since they cut Kearse. They may also be losing Lito Shephard so maybe it makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites
*Lone*Trout* 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Weird addition, their secondary was already solid it's the pass rush they need to strengthen since they cut Kearse. They may also be losing Lito Shephard so maybe it makes sense.There's talk of either shpping Lito for Larry Fitzgerald of the Cardinals or keeping Lito and moving Sheldon Brown over to the SS spot when Dawkins retires. There is also talk about signing Raiders DE Chris Clemons. One can only hope.*L*T* Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRichey 1 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Look who just got much better..............Is T.O. ever gonna score against the Eagles?*L*T*TO will destroy Samuels. I doubt he'll cover him though, that would be really dumb of Jim Johnson. TO is far too physical for Asante, you'd still have to double him. I would be much more concerned about Fitz going to Philly, though their O-line needs some serious help.And TO scored against Philly this year. Link to post Share on other sites
DrawingDeadInDM 0 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 TO will destroy Samuels. I doubt he'll cover him though, that would be really dumb of Jim Johnson. TO is far too physical for Asante, you'd still have to double him. I would be much more concerned about Fitz going to Philly, though their O-line needs some serious help.And TO scored against Philly this year.LOOOOOOOOL Is TO code for 'Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ'? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now