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

Yep. We last beat you guys 24-0 in December of 96 before finally beating you guys 10-9 in October of 01. 9 straight losses counting the Divisional round playoff loss.

It ended in the most painful way too... starting with Mr. Rodney Williams terrible punt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That goes back to my question about the Ravens. What if the Giants had the same track record as Baltimore this decade? If winning the SB is the only thing that matters, would they still be the team of the decade? :huh:

I'm basing it overall. The Eagles obviously have a higher regular season win % than the Giants this decade, but they didn't do anything with it other than a handful of NFCE Championships and an NFC Championship. Neither of them equal 2 NFC Championships, 2 SB appearances, and 1 SB win, on top of a few NFCE division Championships of their own. In no way am I saying the Eagles were not a very good team this decade, I'm just saying that the Giants accomplished more, which makes them the better team of the decade IMO.

The Ravens, other than their SB win, were largely horrible since then from what I can recall. I dont feel like looking up their numbers, but I don't remember them being much better than .500 or below most of the time. As we're talking about divisions here, I'd have to guess that Pitt had more success this past decade as far as wins go. Again, it's just a guess. I don't know for sure and frankly, I couldn't care less about the AFCN ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It ended in the most painful way too... starting with Mr. Rodney Williams terrible punt

Isn't he the one who had that crazy punt of 97 yards or some damn thing? Remember that? It took the wildest roll ever and we had it covered all the way down the field :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was the only year we were above .500 right?

Did the streak start in 97?

Yeah and if I remember right Giants went to the playoffs in 97 and SHOULD have won their playoff game but had a meltdown right at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That goes back to my question about the Ravens. What if the Giants had the same track record as Baltimore this decade? If winning the SB is the only thing that matters, would they still be the team of the decade? :huh:

You say Baltimore as if to say they have been bad this decade. You do realize they have been pretty good right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basing it overall. The Eagles obviously have a higher regular season win % than the Giants this decade, but they didn't do anything with it other than a handful of NFCE Championships and an NFC Championship. Neither of them equal 2 NFC Championships, 2 SB appearances, and 1 SB win, on top of a few NFCE division Championships of their own. In no way am I saying the Eagles were not a very good team this decade, I'm just saying that the Giants accomplished more, which makes them the better team of the decade IMO.

The Ravens, other than their SB win, were largely horrible since then from what I can recall. I dont feel like looking up their numbers, but I don't remember them being much better than .500 or below most of the time. As we're talking about divisions here, I'd have to guess that Pitt had more success this past decade as far as wins go. Again, it's just a guess. I don't know for sure and frankly, I couldn't care less about the AFCN ;)

The ravings have had multiple 10 win seasons since then and a 13 win season. They haven't done much in the playoffs but they have had success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't he the one who had that crazy punt of 97 yards or some damn thing? Remember that? It took the wildest roll ever and we had it covered all the way down the field :lol:

Yeah September 10th 2001 against Denver.

That was basically the highlight of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that counts is rings and it's very convenient for a Giants fan to start a thread that will be solely based on a championship after the Giants win the championship. I'm going to revoke your Rangers fan priviledges

Look back on the first page. I argued that body of work is just as important as championships when arguing team of the decade. The Giants have the second best body of work (playoffs 5 of 8 years) and the most championships. I see a case for either the Eagles or Giants.

BTW, I'm not sure if some foreigner that now lives in New Jersey is revoking my Rangers fan privileges. Now stay on topic and mind your tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basing it overall. The Eagles obviously have a higher regular season win % than the Giants this decade, but they didn't do anything with it other than a handful of NFCE Championships and an NFC Championship. Neither of them equal 2 NFC Championships, 2 SB appearances, and 1 SB win, on top of a few NFCE division Championships of their own. In no way am I saying the Eagles were not a very good team this decade, I'm just saying that the Giants accomplished more, which makes them the better team of the decade IMO.

The Ravens, other than their SB win, were largely horrible since then from what I can recall. I dont feel like looking up their numbers, but I don't remember them being much better than .500 or below most of the time. As we're talking about divisions here, I'd have to guess that Pitt had more success this past decade as far as wins go. Again, it's just a guess. I don't know for sure and frankly, I couldn't care less about the AFCN ;)

Here's the deal--Before last season, the Eagles were clearly the team of the decade...and it wasn't even close. Now, since the Giants won the SB, that means they're the team of the decade and it's not even close? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before last season, the Eagles were clearly the team of the decade...and it wasn't even close.

I never said this, although the Giants winning the SB should most definitely put them ahead of the Eagles

Do you not agree? If you don't, then this entire discussion is pointless because we obviously have very different viewpoints and will likely never see eye to eye on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said this, although the Giants winning the SB should most definitely put them ahead of the Eagles

Do you not agree? If you don't, then this entire discussion is pointless because we obviously have very different viewpoints and will likely never see eye to eye on it.

I said I don't know. Now, you don't agree that the Eagles were the better team before last year? If you don't, then this entire discussion is pointless because we obviously have very different viewpoints and will likely never see eye to eye on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look back on the first page. I argued that body of work is just as important as championships when arguing team of the decade. The Giants have the second best body of work (playoffs 5 of 8 years) and the most championships. I see a case for either the Eagles or Giants.

BTW, I'm not sure if some foreigner that now lives in New Jersey is revoking my Rangers fan privileges. Now stay on topic and mind your tongue.

And you'd be wrong, once again, the only thing that matter is championships, not body of work. If we went 18-1 for 5 straight years and the Giants won the Superbowl at 8-8 then as far as i'm concerned the Giants have had a better decade. 2nd place doesn't get you anything.

BTW, you're an immigrant. The only people in America that aren't immigrants are Indians, who's land was stolen from them by the Europeans, probably like yourself. Go back to Europe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, you don't agree that the Eagles were the better team before last year?

Depends on your definition of 'better team'

If you mean more regular season wins, then yes...the Eagles were the better team. That doesn't tell the whole story though, just like stats don't tell the whole story. What did those regular season wins get them other than a higher win percentage over the Giants? I'd take a Lombardi over 10 straight NFCE Championships in a decade any day of the week, just as I'm sure any sane and rational football fan would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on your definition of 'better team'

If you mean more regular season wins, then yes...the Eagles were the better team. That doesn't tell the whole story though, just like stats don't tell the whole story. What did those regular season wins get them other than a higher win percentage over the Giants? I'd take a Lombardi over 10 straight NFCE Championships in a decade any day of the week, just as I'm sure any sane and rational football fan would.

"rational" is a dangerous word around these parts

Plenty of Eagle fans bought into the FO hype with that "Gold Standard" BS and have a tough time realizing now that a few NFCE division championships (during the worst stretch the division has had in 20+ years) does not equal dynasty...its really hard to explain how they never did get it done as a franchise

Eagles have had a solid run this decade no doubt but they don't throw parades for solid runs only for being world champs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you'd be wrong, once again, the only thing that matter is championships, not body of work. If we went 18-1 for 5 straight years and the Giants won the Superbowl at 8-8 then as far as i'm concerned the Giants have had a better decade. 2nd place doesn't get you anything.

BTW, you're an immigrant. The only people in America that aren't immigrants are Indians, who's land was stolen from them by the Europeans, probably like yourself. Go back to Europe

Actually they imigrated from Asia over a land bridge. They are pretty sure that the first modern humans appeared in northern Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which team should be considered "The Team of the Decade" thus far?

Giants: 53% reg sea win %; 2 Div Titles; 3 WC; 6 Playoff Wins; 2 SB Appearances; 1 SB Win

Eagles: 65% reg sea win %; 5 Div Titles; 1 WC; 8 Playoff Wins; 1 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

Cowboys: 48% reg sea win %; 1 Div Titles; 2 WC; 0 Playoff Wins; 0 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

Skins: 45% reg sea win %; 0 Div Titles; 2 WC; 1 Playoff Win; 0 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

has to be the eagles even though we didnt win the superbowl but we owned the nfc east 6yrs out the last 8. but with the giants winning the freaking sb they are right up there with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
has to be the eagles even though we didnt win the superbowl but we owned the nfc east 6yrs out the last 8. but with the giants winning the freaking sb they are right up there with us.

Why does it have to be the Eagles? Regular season wins? Dallas was 13-3 last year and has absolutely nothing to show for it. People dont remember regular season wins, they remember Championships

Explain your reasoning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on your definition of 'better team'

If you mean more regular season wins, then yes...the Eagles were the better team. That doesn't tell the whole story though, just like stats don't tell the whole story. What did those regular season wins get them other than a higher win percentage over the Giants? I'd take a Lombardi over 10 straight NFCE Championships in a decade any day of the week, just as I'm sure any sane and rational football fan would.

The team that had more success between 2000 and 2006. Which team was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which team should be considered "The Team of the Decade" thus far?

Giants: 53% reg sea win %; 2 Div Titles; 3 WC; 6 Playoff Wins; 2 SB Appearances; 1 SB Win

Eagles: 65% reg sea win %; 5 Div Titles; 1 WC; 8 Playoff Wins; 1 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

Cowboys: 48% reg sea win %; 1 Div Titles; 2 WC; 0 Playoff Wins; 0 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

Skins: 45% reg sea win %; 0 Div Titles; 2 WC; 1 Playoff Win; 0 SB Appearances; 0 SB Win

You numbers say it all...E-A-G-L-E-S!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

giants..its about winning the big game, and they were the only ones to do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong--take boxing for instance as an example, it don't matter if your punch contact ratio is 1000-1, if the one was the knockout blow who wins?

If you are talking about the team of the 2000's it is the eagles they dominated the division

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are talking about the team of the 2000's it is the eagles they dominated the division

It is that mentality that the front office adheres to, while other teams rack up super bowls this front office knows that this fan base is completely satisfied that the little eagles did win the most regular season games. the front office will toss the fans a bone every few years (T.O., Samuel) to make the fans think that they are just a player or two away from a super bowl and to keep the seats filled. As long as the seats are filled and the pockets get lined the front office could care less about a super bowl, since they already feel they are the "gold standard"- :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The team that had more success between 2000 and 2006. Which team was that?

But what did they do that was so successful that trumps 2 NFC Championships, 2 SB appearances and 1 SB win?!

If you wanna be proud over winning the NFCE when it was at its worst, thats your business. It doesn't mean they had more success than the Giants. Anyone who doesn't see this just doesn't want to see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong--take boxing for instance as an example, it don't matter if your punch contact ratio is 1000-1, if the one was the knockout blow who wins?

The boxer with 1000 punches would win 7-1. Different season, different match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what did they do that was so successful that trumps 2 NFC Championships, 2 SB appearances and 1 SB win?!

If you wanna be proud over winning the NFCE when it was at its worst, thats your business. It doesn't mean they had more success than the Giants. Anyone who doesn't see this just doesn't want to see it

LMAO "Gold Standard" fools gold maybe -they'll make a little noise this year until McNever pukes on himself and loses a few close games then it will be everyone else's fault once again ....GOLD STANDARD!! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites