Eagles win NFC East (?)...

[dbldwn711]

The Eagles are behind the Patriots, the Steelers, the Ravens and the Giants since 2000. If we're behind the Seahawks because they've been to an extra SB, that's fine, but then we're ahead of the Colts, Saints and Packers. Rams won the SB in the 1999 season. Does that count or not?

RTK keeps saying “the last 20 years” but then says it doesn’t count. Either he’s disingenuous or he can’t count.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

That is the most moronic scoring system I've seen. 1 point for making the playoffs and 4 points for a SB win??? More like 50 points for a SB win and 1 point for pretty much everything else combined. Now see where you stand...

As I said we can come up with a new point system and I'll work over the weekend to do the math with the teams to see where they all stand.

I'm thinking maybe:

10 points per SB win
5 points per SB appearence
3 points per conference title game appearence
2 points per playoff win/first round bye obtained
1 point per year team made playoffs

 

[ericd7633]

That is the most moronic scoring system I've seen. 1 point for making the playoffs and 4 points for a SB win??? More like 50 points for a SB win and 1 point for pretty much everything else combined. Now see where you stand...

With that system we are probably 5th behind the Pats, Steelers, Ravens and Giants.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

Getting in as a division winner is a bigger accomplishment than wildcard. Ask any analyst, expert, player, the Colts are one of the most successful organizations of the past 20 years. You are literally cherry picking two stats. Look at Cultural relevance, players that have come and gone, awards, hall of famers. The Colts are arguably only behind the Pats and Steelers for the last 20 years.

Okay...so in past 20 years the Colts have won their division 9 times. If the Eagles beat the Giants on Sunday then the Eagles in the last 20 years will have won their division...9 times.

 

[ericd7633]

If it helps the Eagles argument, no. If it counts against them, yes...

It doesnt matter to me or not. 1999 was 21 seasons ago. Even if it counts we've still been better than the Rams IMO.

 

[dbldwn711]

Okay...so in past 20 years the Colts have won their division 9 times. If the Eagles beat the Giants on Sunday then the Eagles in the last 20 years will have won their division...9 times.

He said “dominant” not “winning”. That’s still a concept you keep skipping over ... to nobody’s surprise.

 

[ericd7633]

RTK keeps saying “the last 20 years” but then says it doesn’t count. Either he’s disingenuous or he can’t count.

1999 was 21 seasons ago. Like I said earlier, doesn't matter I'd still take the Eagles over the Rams.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

RTK keeps saying “the last 20 years” but then says it doesn’t count. Either he’s disingenuous or he can’t count.

Funny you follow up your post that contained no logical consistency with this post showing you are the one that struggles with simple counting.

1 - 00
2 - 01
3 - 02
4 - 03
5 - 04
6 - 05
7 - 06
8 - 07
9 - 08
10 - 09
11 - 10
12 - 11
13 - 12
14 - 13
15 - 14
16 - 15
17 - 16
18 - 17
19 - 18
20 - 19

 

[dbldwn711]

1999 was 21 seasons ago. Like I said earlier, doesn't matter I'd still take the Eagles over the Rams.

tje SB was in 2000. That’s within 20 years.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

He said “dominant” not “winning”. That’s still a concept you keep skipping over ... to nobody’s surprise.

He literally said, "Getting in as a division winner is a bigger accomplishment than wildcard."

But I get it, you're reaaaaaally struggling here these past few posts.

 

[dbldwn711]

He literally said, "Getting in as a division winner is a bigger accomplishment than wildcard."

But I get it, you're reaaaaaally struggling here these past few posts.

Haha. Yup... I’m struggling. Keep touting those conference championship APPEARANCES. Bwhahaha

 

[RememberTheKoy]

Haha. Yup... I’m struggling. Keep touting those conference championship APPEARANCES. Bwhahaha

A team making it further in the playoffs than another team would make that team more successful.

 

[ericd7633]

tje SB was in 2000. That’s within 20 years.

Okay then count the SB win. Are you still taking their last two decades over the Eagles?

 

[dbldwn711]

A team making it further in the playoffs than another team would make that team more successful.

WINNING is what counts MUCH more than going. That’s a concept you don’t want to admit because it defeats your argument.

Let’s look at the previous 20 year stretch (1979-1999). Applying your logic the buffalo bills would be more successful than the redskins because they APPEARED in 4 SBs (losing all 4) while the redskins only appeared in 2 but won one of them.

getting it yet dumb dumb?

 

[dbldwn711]

Okay then count the SB win. Are you still taking their last two decades over the Eagles?

I already answered it and said why. Hint: it’s not just winning it dominance.

“appearances” are much less than “winning” which is much less than “dominant winning”.

 

[dbldwn711]

He literally said, "Getting in as a division winner is a bigger accomplishment than wildcard."

But I get it, you're reaaaaaally struggling here these past few posts.

You’ve completely ignored what he said before that. I’m not surprised

 

[RememberTheKoy]

WINNING is what counts MUCH more than going. That’s a concept you don’t want to admit because it defeats your argument.

Let’s look at the previous 20 year stretch (1979-1999). Applying your logic the buffalo bills would be more successful than the redskins because they APPEARED in 4 SBs (losing all 4) while the redskins only appeared in 2 but won one of them.

getting it yet dumb dumb?

Except that doesn't apply to any of the teams you're trying to argue.

Colt, Broncos and Eagles went to the same amount of Super Bowls and won the same amount. Packers went to less, Rams went to same amount but lost both.

So what is the next indicator we can go off of to determine who was more successful if we have a stalemate at the most important factor of winning the Super Bowl? That would be playoff wins.

One doesn't fall ass backwards into a conference title game, they either win multiple playoff games to get there are do so well in regular season they earn a bye and then still win at least a game in the playoffs. If a team A goes further than team B in the playoffs then team A had a more successful year.

 

[ericd7633]

I already answered it and said why. Hint: it’s not just winning it dominance.

“appearances” are much less than “winning” which is much less than “dominant winning”.

What's been so dominant about the Rams of all teams? Both have 1 SB win. The Eagles have 14 playoff wins, Rams 8. Eagles have 55 more regular season wins.

 

[RememberTheKoy]

You’ve completely ignored what he said before that. I’m not surprised

His argument for why the Colts were more "dominant" was his false assumption that the Colts had made the playoffs more and won their division more. But Eagles have made the playoffs and won the division the same amount of times.

 

[dbldwn711]

Except that doesn't apply to any of the teams you're trying to argue.

Colt, Broncos and Eagles went to the same amount of Super Bowls and won the same amount. Packers went to less, Rams went to same amount but lost both.

So what is the next indicator we can go off of to determine who was more successful if we have a stalemate at the most important factor of winning the Super Bowl? That would be playoff wins.

One doesn't fall ass backwards into a conference title game, they either win multiple playoff games to get there are do so well in regular season they earn a bye and then still win at least a game in the playoffs. If a team A goes further than team B in the playoffs then team A had a more successful year.

i can only teach you I can’t learn it for you. It’s great watching disingenuous people try and argue (ie “losing one the SB is like losing in the conference championship”).

I can assure you my problem is not with the eagles but rather a segment of their fans who act like dipshits such as yourself.