Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BKLYNYG

NFC East Team of the Decade

Team of the Decade  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Team of the Decade

    • Giants
      89
    • Eagles
      214
    • Boys
      4
    • Skins
      4


Recommended Posts

Thats what all 32 teams try to do every season, so how can it be arbitrary?

32 teams try to win the bowl every season to see exactly who the winner of the sb is. That's all it is. Is the NY Giants the BEST team in the NFL because they won the Super Bowl? Over 40 SB winnners so far, were all of them the BEST team of their year? Of course not, that's why some of them are called upsets. The BEST team doesn't always win. And winning the big game at the end of the year doesn't automatically make you the most dominant team in the league. If that were true, then the Giants should win again if there was no free agency and no draft, and we all know that's not true.

Many things factor into a Super Bowl win. Luck is involved, as are many other unforseeable circumstances. And because of that, the Super Bowl cannot be a perfect measure of the strength of a team. That is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not trying to crown the Eagles with anything here. I'm just saying that the Super Bowl is not everything. Which franchise do you think is more successful, one that wins 70% of the games played, sells out all of its games, has a great fan base, but in 10 years does not win a SB, or one that is consistently in the bottom of the league, but one year catches fire and wins the big game, having a 30% win rate for the 10 years but an SB ring to show for it?

It's an exaggeration, but I have a hard time believing that people would automatically crown the 2nd team as the more successful. There's a line in there somewhere, but where?

Overall if team one was the Cowboys and team 2 was the Giants both teams won the same amount of games.

For those that say we won because of luck I'd like you to mention one team that didn't get lucky enroute to the SB.

I've asked this question every thread and have never gotten a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 teams try to win the bowl every season to see exactly who the winner of the sb is. That's all it is. Is the NY Giants the BEST team in the NFL because they won the Super Bowl? Over 40 SB winnners so far, were all of them the BEST team of their year? Of course not, that's why some of them are called upsets. The BEST team doesn't always win. And winning the big game at the end of the year doesn't automatically make you the most dominant team in the league. If that were true, then the Giants should win again if there was no free agency and no draft, and we all know that's not true.

Many things factor into a Super Bowl win. Luck is involved, as are many other unforseeable circumstances. And because of that, the Super Bowl cannot be a perfect measure of the strength of a team. That is all I'm saying.

I understand comepletely, but again, it's not just about the Giants winning the SB this year. You also have to factor in the number of games won, the number of playoff appearances and/or wins, the number of Division Championships, the number of NFCCG appearances and/or wins, and the number of SB appearances and/or wins. Now obviously, the Eagles have the higher winning percentage in the regular season in this decade, and also in the playoffs, and thats fine. It certainly tilts the scale in their favor so far, right?

The Giants have not been slouches in the regular season in the past decade either. Yes, they had a few years below .500, but in the last 3 years, the Eagles have missed the playoffs twice themselves. The Giants have won the division 2 times in this decade, and the Eagles had it won for 4 straight years between '01 and '04, and then again in '06. In their favor again, of course.

Now here is where the disagreement comes in. The Giants are 2-0 in NFCCG's this decade. The Eagles are 1-3. The Giants are 1-1 in SB's this decade. The Eagles are 0-1

Which games are more important? Which games do teams kill themselves to get to every year? Better yet, which games are often remembered in NFL history and which ones are not? Regular season games pale in comparison to the playoffs as far as intensity and importance, not to mention pressure and competitivness, and because the Giants have been more successful in such games in this decade, I'm giving them the overall edge, albeit a very slight edge. I'm certainly not putting down what the Eagles have done, but it's just not quite on the same level.

Seriously....would you rather have a decade full of NFCE Championships or 1 Lombardi trophy? Which would you think is more significant? Better yet, which one would you be more proud of as a fan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboys, giants, redskins fans, gather around, let's vote to go ahead and give the little eagles this token gift that means so very much to them, after all they will never taste a super bowl victory and this is as close as they will ever get, ok little eagle fans, if it makes you feel like you accomplished something take this victory and wear it with pride and add it to your trophy case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 teams try to win the bowl every season to see exactly who the winner of the sb is. That's all it is. Is the NY Giants the BEST team in the NFL because they won the Super Bowl? Over 40 SB winnners so far, were all of them the BEST team of their year? Of course not, that's why some of them are called upsets. The BEST team doesn't always win. And winning the big game at the end of the year doesn't automatically make you the most dominant team in the league. If that were true, then the Giants should win again if there was no free agency and no draft, and we all know that's not true.

Many things factor into a Super Bowl win. Luck is involved, as are many other unforseeable circumstances. And because of that, the Super Bowl cannot be a perfect measure of the strength of a team. That is all I'm saying.

at the end of the season the Giants were the best team and they proved it by beating 3 teams that were 13-3, 13-3, and 16-0 in the regular season. In pro sports it's not how a team starts, it's how they finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at the end of the season the Giants were the best team and they proved it by beating 3 teams that were 13-3, 13-3, and 16-0 in the regular season. In pro sports it's not how a team starts, it's how they finish.

the little eagles will not be able to understand what you mean foos, this is unchartered territory for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall if team one was the Cowboys and team 2 was the Giants both teams won the same amount of games.

For those that say we won because of luck I'd like you to mention one team that didn't get lucky enroute to the SB.

I've asked this question every thread and have never gotten a response.

No where did I say I was talking about the Giants. And team one is definitely not the Cowboys.

It's a pure hypothetical situation.

And yes, every team needs some luck to win the Super Bowl, that's exactly what I am saying. And that is exactly my point. Since there is so much luck involved almost every year, the Super Bowl is not a perfect barometer for the prowess of a team. Stop trying to defend the Giants, whom I am NOT attacking.

To clarify:

I am not saying the Eagles > Giants or Giants > Eagles in the past decade. I am not trying to argue that the Giants Super Bowl did not push the Giants above the Eagles in success. I am merely arguing against those in this thread who point SOLELY to championships as a barometer of success. It doesn't work that way. Just because you won a Super Bowl does not mean that if you play any other team in the league, you will win most of the time. Does the Giants Super Bowl validate that team and make it a more successful one? Certainly! Does it automatically make it the "BEST" team or the most "DOMINANT" one, in position to win games against any other rival? Nope. Was the Giants the better team on the day they defeated the Patriots? YES. Are they the best team of the year? That's less certain and definitely open to debate. That's all I'm trying to get across.

Everyone loves to defend their own team, so I'm going to take a different route:

1980 US Olympic hockey team won the Gold medal. Was it the best team in those games? If it played the Soviets and the Finnish again and again, which teams would come out on top consistently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No where did I say I was talking about the Giants. And team one is definitely not the Cowboys.

It's a pure hypothetical situation.

And yes, every team needs some luck to win the Super Bowl, that's exactly what I am saying. And that is exactly my point. Since there is so much luck involved almost every year, the Super Bowl is not a perfect barometer for the prowess of a team. Stop trying to defend the Giants, whom I am NOT attacking.

To clarify:

I am not saying the Eagles > Giants or Giants > Eagles in the past decade. I am not trying to argue that the Giants Super Bowl did not push the Giants above the Eagles in success. I am merely arguing against those in this thread who point SOLELY to championships as a barometer of success. It doesn't work that way. Just because you won a Super Bowl does not mean that if you play any other team in the league, you will win most of the time. Does the Giants Super Bowl validate that team and make it a more successful one? Certainly! Does it automatically make it the "BEST" team or the most "DOMINANT" one, in position to win games against any other rival? Nope. Was the Giants the better team on the day they defeated the Patriots? YES. Are they the best team of the year? That's less certain and definitely open to debate. That's all I'm trying to get across.

Everyone loves to defend their own team, so I'm going to take a different route:

1980 US Olympic hockey team won the Gold medal. Was it the best team in those games? If it played the Soviets and the Finnish again and again, which teams would come out on top consistently?

but it doesnt have too..it won the game that counted...thats what is great about the football playoffs, win or go home...you dont get a do-over, or a "my bad"..you have to win...the giants were able to do that, the eagles werent..hence, better this decade, even if its just once...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but it doesnt have too..it won the game that counted...thats what is great about the football playoffs, win or go home...you dont get a do-over, or a "my bad"..you have to win...the giants were able to do that, the eagles werent..hence, better this decade, even if its just once...

See... this is where we disagree. You are assigning a team as the "better" by a single arbitrary game. It's an important game, sure. It is the most important game, I agree. But it simply does not invalidate the other games the teams have played.

Oh well, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. At least until our damned birds win one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is saying that the Giants were the best in the NFL THIS SEASON, not this DECADE. At least thats what I'm getting out of his posts

I am merely arguing against those in this thread who point SOLELY to championships as a barometer of success. It doesn't work that way.

When you keep defending regular season wins as something comparable to Championships in the overall scheme of things, you will always run into this same argument over and over again. There is simply no comparison because it's absurd. Championships mean a whole hell of a lot more than regular season wins, and thats it in a nutshell. People generally do judge teams on their success by what they've accomplished, and in the NFL, Championships are the biggest and most untouchable accomplishment there is. They overshadow EVERYTHING else that anyone has done in that particular season that the Championship was won. Just ask the Patriots, who were 18*-1, even though they played a perfect regular season. Who got more headlines when they were beat? And Dallas was 13-3. Think anyone cared after they lost in their first playoff game? Their seasons were worthless because they ended in failure, and 20 years from now, who do you think will likely be remembered when the '07 season is talked about?

I'll agree to disagree, and I'll stop right here. Good talking to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See... this is where we disagree. You are assigning a team as the "better" by a single arbitrary game. It's an important game, sure. It is the most important game, I agree. But it simply does not invalidate the other games the teams have played.

Oh well, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. At least until our damned birds win one...

thats all i want,..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites