Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
another way to say it is i'd rather have a team that streaks
you win superbowls on streaking years, unless you're the colts or patriots who can consistently win 12+ games
for 95% of teams, consistently above average isn't enough to get you very far into the playoffs, if it gets you there at all
so i'd rather have a team that has huge ups and downs, cause its on those ups that you can have special years
Why don't you just accept the fact that there is incredible parity in the NFL, and a team like the Broncos that made 4 playoff appearances and never lost more than 9 games is a top ten team for the decade?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:52 pm Posts: 2647 Location: Where gila monsters meet you at the airport
Buffalohed wrote:
i guess i just put more emphasis on merely getting the chance to contend for a title than most people do. and of course im biased because my Texans have never had that chance.
and i can see how you wouldnt think that is that great, mecca, being a bills fan. haha.
I could see your point if there were really any teams who fit that bill, but if all you can come up with is the Chargers and Seahawks ... then why do you have such an issue with the ranking? In other words, the ranking would be flawed if there were a team ranked somewhere below Denver that had won the Super Bowl twice and sucked the other 8 years, but there's no such team.
In terms of playoff success, compare the Broncos with the Chargers and Seahawks. The Seahawks went to one Super Bowl. The Chargers and Broncos both went to one conference championship game. So that's really very close. Seattle and SD had a couple more early round playoff wins, which is why there's at least a reasonable argument they should be ranked higher.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
mray10 wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
i guess i just put more emphasis on merely getting the chance to contend for a title than most people do. and of course im biased because my Texans have never had that chance.
and i can see how you wouldnt think that is that great, mecca, being a bills fan. haha.
I could see your point if there were really any teams who fit that bill, but if all you can come up with is the Chargers and Seahawks ... then why do you have such an issue with the ranking? In other words, the ranking would be flawed if there were a team ranked somewhere below Denver that had won the Super Bowl twice and sucked the other 8 years, but there's no such team.
In terms of playoff success, compare the Broncos with the Chargers and Seahawks. The Seahawks went to one Super Bowl. The Chargers and Broncos both went to one conference championship game. So that's really very close. Seattle and SD had a couple more early round playoff wins, which is why there's at least a reasonable argument they should be ranked higher.
But is that really such an injustice?
lol @ "such an issue"
I just said that if I were to rank them I would switch it around some. Who said anything about injustice? It's just football, and I explained why I preferred one thing over the other.
but hey if you don't want to discuss it, you're not being forced to.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
#7: Green Bay Packers Record: 95-65 (.594) (5th) Playoff Appearances: 6 (T4th) Playoff Wins: 3 (T13th) Consistency Rank: 9th
Rounding out the teams that were consistent winners but could never get over the hump are the Packers. There was only one truly bad season (4-12 in 2005), and six years of 10+ win seasons. Rarely was it that the Packers would be a tough out in the decade. Nonetheless, there were some particularly painful playoff losses for this franchise. The Lambeau playoff dominance ended at the hands of the Michael Vick led Falcons in 2002, they suffered the 4th and 26 conversion against the Eagles, their fans were fake mooned by Randy Moss against the hated Vikings in 2004, and Brett Favre threw a mindblowing interception in overtime against the Giants in 2007.
Speaking of Favre, he was the face of the franchise for much of this decade, as he was in the 1990s. However, his endless contemplation of retirement covered a good span of it, leading the team to draft Aaron Rodgers in 2005. Favre decided to retire in 2007—or so it seemed. Just days before training camp, he announced that he changed his mind, leading to his trade to the New York Jets.
Rodgers has at least provided enough evidence that he is serviceable enough to help fans forget about Favre, even if he is playing for the Vikings. The question is whether Mike McCarthy and the front office have enough help around him, as well as securing some key positions on defense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum