Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL 2016-17 Thread - Page 270

post #4036 of 5305
The Giants aren't what you typically expect from a Super Bowl team. Generally if you're 9-7 and win your division (2011), it says more about your division than it says about your team being good. If you're 10-6 and a Wildcard team, you're not supposed to win 3 playoff games on the road and make it to the Superbowl, let alone win it against one of the best teams in NFL history (2007). It's not what a championship team is supposed to look like, but it does happen. That's why the Giant's success is so jarring. Their best regular season, they went 12-4 and were one and done. Second best regular season, they went 11-5 and were one and done. They win the Superbowl with 10-6 and 9-7 records. But give them credit for getting it done during the home stretch each time. Coughlin is going to go out with a 102-90 record in the regular season and an 8-3 record in the playoffs (of course, that means 7 out of 12 seasons they failed to make the playoffs, but still). That's not sustained success, but it's also not mediocrity. Most fan bases would kill for a winning record and 2 Superbowl titles in 12 years. Only 4 teams have won multiple Superbowls since the 2000 season (Baltimore, NE, Pittsburgh, NYG). Only 5 more teams have won a Superbowl since the 2000 season.

By comparison, Pittsburgh is 126-66 in the regular season, 11-5 in the playoffs with 2 Superbowl wins since 2004. Baltimore is 110-82 in the regular season, 10-6 in the playoffs and won one Superbowl since 2004 (their first was in 2000). New England is 148-44 in the regular season, with a 15-8 record in the playoffs and 2 Superbowls since 2004 (prior 2 in 2001 and 2003). So I guess the Giants are the least impressive team with multiple Superbowl wins since 2000, but that's still pretty damn good. Compare their record against teams with one ring and they probably look better than some. Compare their record with teams with no rings and they probably are a lot better. Perhaps the worst thing you can say about them as that they've been an above average team over this period that managed to play above what we expected from them in a couple seasons.
post #4037 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Eh, it isn't really that petty. It takes a lot of luck to go 17-0 in a season and it takes a lot of luck to be 9-7 in the Superbowl. I just don't think you can genuinely say they are tied as the second-best team of the last 10 years is all. They're in the middle of the pack at best.

Was anyone saying they're the second best team of the last 10 years?


Where they fall in the rankings depends on how heavily you weight championships. Some of the usual suspects of top NFL teams only have one ring over the last ten years. Peyton's Colts, the Packers. It's damn hard to win multiple championships. None of the other mediocre teams have two rings (or even one), so that shines up Coughlin's resume quite a bit.
post #4038 of 5305
OK so put it at another way: Which teams were they better than during the Manning era? During their best seasons, which teams were the Giants better than?

That's when you can see they were a mediocre team all in all.

Just thinking quickly the Pats, Colts, Broncos, Seahawks, Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Saints are better over that time period. They certainly aren't better than the Cowboys, Bears. Maybe they're better than the Chiefs, Chargers and Jets. Even if better than the last three that's still the 11th best team in the League. Sorry if I don't find that particularly impressive.
post #4039 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Was anyone saying they're the second best team of the last 10 years?


Where they fall in the rankings depends on how heavily you weight championships. Some of the usual suspects of top NFL teams only have one ring over the last ten years. Peyton's Colts, the Packers. It's damn hard to win multiple championships. None of the other mediocre teams have two rings (or even one), so that shines up Coughlin's resume quite a bit.

Well if you use the Giants SB success as the metric for how to evaluate them, they are tied for second-most SBs in the last 10 years. As you might guess, I don't weight SB rings terribly heavily in evaluating a team's success and comparing the Giants to other teams over the last decade their resumes don't compare favorably IMO.
post #4040 of 5305

Wait, who is first? Are we including the Pats rings from the multiple episodes of cheating? or has everyone just discounted those by now :devil:

post #4041 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

OK so put it at another way: Which teams were they better than during the Manning era? During their best seasons, which teams were the Giants better than?

That's when you can see they were a mediocre team all in all.

Just thinking quickly the Pats, Colts, Broncos, Seahawks, Ravens, Steelers, Packers, Saints are better over that time period. They certainly aren't better than the Cowboys, Bears. Maybe they're better than the Chiefs, Chargers and Jets. Even if better than the last three that's still the 11th best team in the League. Sorry if I don't find that particularly impressive.
Quote:
Well if you use the Giants SB success as the metric for how to evaluate them, they are tied for second-most SBs in the last 10 years. As you might guess, I don't weight SB rings terribly heavily in evaluating a team's success and comparing the Giants to other teams over the last decade their resumes don't compare favorably IMO.

Seems like you don't weight Super Bowl victories at all, or even playoff wins. Cowboys have one playoff win in 10 years. Unless the post-season doesn't matter at all, it's stupid to say that's better than the Giants over that timeframe. Many people disproportionately value Super Bowl victories, but come on. Ask any Cowboy's fan if they'd swap records with the Giants over the last ten years, and I doubt any would say no.
post #4042 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Seems like you don't weight Super Bowl victories at all, or even playoff wins. Cowboys have one playoff win in 10 years. Unless the post-season doesn't matter at all, it's stupid to say that's better than the Giants over that timeframe. Many people disproportionately value Super Bowl victories, but come on. Ask any Cowboy's fan if they'd swap records with the Giants over the last ten years, and I doubt any would say no.

Regular season record is the main way the Giants can be described as very slightly above average / mediocre (they are at 102-90 only 6 wins above .500). Winning seasons (6, only 3 with 10+ wins), .500 seasons (2), losing seasons (4). Well, maybe 5 playoff appearances over 12 years is only slightly better than average. 8 playoff victories is meaningfully above average, 2 Superbowl appearances even rarer and two Superbowl victories rarer still in a 12 year period. I recognize that there are going to be differences between averages and medians, as some teams consistently make the playoffs and even win a game in the playoffs, but I don't feel like actually going through each team's records to pull those numbers.

If you take out their two Superbowl years, their record becomes 83-77, their playoff appearances become 3 in 10 years (below average), their playoff victories become 0 (well below average) and that's it. Pretty much the definition of mediocre across the board. I don't think it's really fair to just ignore their most successful seasons, but if a team is going to open itself up to this sort of analysis, it is the Giants, just because of how they won. For them, it was miss the playoffs (most often), one and done (3 times) or win the Superbowl as a 4 seed or lower (2 times). It is weird to think about. You look at the Ravens, Steelers, and Patriots and they were winning more consistently, playing in conference championship games some years where they did not make it to the Superbowl. If you take out the 2 best years of the other franchises that have won two Superbowls since 2000, they still look like a generally successful team that hadn't one the big one. Not so with the Giants. I think that's why they don't get as much credit as some of the other teams. It's a bit unfair, but there is also some truth to it.
post #4043 of 5305

Well yeah, but that logic is basically - if you take out their best seasons, they suck. Well no shit, you took out their best seasons, and left the worst seasons in there.

 

I could say the same about the patriots - if you take out their superbowls in the last 10 years, they havent won any, and lost the superbowl with the biggest pointspread in history! LOSERS!

post #4044 of 5305
Patriot fans' desperation to discount their team losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl is understandable. But it's about winning, not being "the best" as determined by the majority vote of online mental masturbation. If you win, you've won. If you lose, you've lost.



post #4045 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Well yeah, but that logic is basically - if you take out their best seasons, they suck. Well no shit, you took out their best seasons, and left the worst seasons in there.

I could say the same about the patriots - if you take out their superbowls in the last 10 years, they havent won any, and lost the superbowl with the biggest pointspread in history! LOSERS!

You really can't say the same thing for the Patriots, Steelers, Ravens or even some of the one title teams like the Packers or Colts. If we're using 12 years for the Patriots (Coughlin's reign) and you take out those two Superbowl victories, you still get a team that won the AFC Championship twice, played in it a total of five times and won their division / made the playoffs every year except the one where they had a backup QB. If you look at the Ravens and Steelers, it's not as impressive but it still looks good. Point is, all three (five counting the Packers / Colts) still look like contenders if you strip out their best seasons.

I happen to agree that winning two Superbowls is a big deal no matter what you did for the rest of your tenure as a couch, but I don't think it's too controversial to say that the Giants outside of two good years didn't really look like a championship caliber franchise for the most part. The other teams that won two titles in that span, however, did, as did some that won one Superbowl. This doesn't take away the fact that the Giants won two Superbowls and deserve all the credit in the world for getting it done when it counts (at the end of the year, being the better team is really nothing but a Pyrrhic victory if you don't win the Superbowl). It does, however, explain some of the dissonance between those who measure a tenure in titles (only or with huge weighting) and who dramatically underweight championships.
post #4046 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Seems like you don't weight Super Bowl victories at all, or even playoff wins. Cowboys have one playoff win in 10 years. Unless the post-season doesn't matter at all, it's stupid to say that's better than the Giants over that timeframe. Many people disproportionately value Super Bowl victories, but come on. Ask any Cowboy's fan if they'd swap records with the Giants over the last ten years, and I doubt any would say no.

I only think playoff wins, Superbowl wins in particular, are vastly overvalued. Just look at this discussion of the Giants--they have two fewer wins we're not mentioning them at all right now. Would Cowboys fans swap? Yeah, sure but that doesn't mean the Giants had a better run than the Cowboys. That shows kind of how silly/pointless it is trying to nail this subjective formula down. You'll have your opinion, I'll have mine. The only difference being I am right. smile.gif

At the end of the day, I just can't buy that the Giants have been in the elite of the NFL over the last 10 years. I mean, they have one more playoff appearance than the Falcons in that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Patriot fans' desperation to discount their team losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl is understandable.

Well I'm not, FWIW. The only thing winning a championship means is that you were the first to win three/four games. I don't think you can honestly look at 2007 and say the best team won the Superbowl that year, which I guess sounds a bit contradictory but whatever.
post #4047 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post



. The only thing winning a championship means is that you were the first to win three/four games. I don't think you can honestly look at 2007 and say the best team won the Superbowl that year, which I guess sounds a bit contradictory but whatever.

I don't think it's contradictory. I understand your point; I just mostly disagree with it. (Which is a huge fucking relief.) I'm sure it could be argued that at least half of the teams that have won Super Bowls weren't the "best" team in the league that year. But there's no objective standard for "best", and there are no trophies given out for being the "best" team that didn't win. It's a competition to see who wins. (Or, alternatively, it's a competition to see which owners can maximize their ROI. But that's kind of a different conversation.)
post #4048 of 5305
Also, FWIW as a Patriots fan, I don't think that the "best team" won the Superbowl in 2001. I was delighted as a fan to see them pull off the upset, but remember, it was an upset. The Rams were supposed to walk out as champions (14 point favorites).

Assume the best team in football wins about 13.5 games in a given season (giving them a probability of winning the average game of around 85%). Also assume they get a bye week in the playoffs at 13-3 or 14-2. Well, competition is at a higher level in the playoffs. This same team that you'd expect to win about 85% of the time in the regular season might win 70% of the time or less in the playoffs. The odds of three consecutive victories with a 70% chance of winning each game is 34%. So 66% of the time, a team other than the best one out there is going to win the Superbowl. That's just how it works in a sport where a single game determines who advances to the next round. Being the best team is no guarantee of a championship nor is a championship evidence that you were the best team that year. They still matter, though, because running the gauntlet and rattling off 3-4 wins against quality opponents when a single misstep can send you home is an accomplishment worthy of respect. Being the "best team," even if we agree on metrics for determining this, is as I previously said, a Pyrrhic victory. It's nice, sort of, but not nearly as nice as winning. I'd take winning a game my team has no business winning over being the best team that season and losing a game my team has no business losing any day of the week.
post #4049 of 5305

As a Rams/Raiders fan... I would love to trade with either of the two aforementioned teams.

post #4050 of 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I just mostly disagree with it.

Well enjoy being wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NFL 2016-17 Thread