|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 17:48:18 GMT
I hear ya. You know how many times I've had to hear that Eli 'got lucky' in the super bowls? Some stupid shit. Thank you. And it is 'Stupid'. You might not have the most talented team on paper full of superstar names; however there's intangibles that go into winning titles Look at the Lakers. Full of star 'names' but are horrid. You do not luck your way an entire season beating other elite teams on your way to a title.You may take a step back the next year; however again there are intangibles at play. You're no 'Fluke'. It is incredibly hard to win a Championship. As seen - it is incredibly hard to repeat. There's another team on the field (an elite team when you get deep in the playoffs) Agree with this completely. But there are always 'intangibles at play.' You either overcome them or you don't. And one title surrounded by mediocrity makes the title look flukey.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 17:49:13 GMT
Fluke = Your team didn't repeat Got it. Good God I'm on Mars You're arguing a point literally nobody is making, you truly are on another planet.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 17:50:05 GMT
No one said they were, Señor Strawman. There's a reason you both keep using fallacies as your "argument" - it's because you're not smart. And yet you’re still losing the argument! LOL And that backup quarterback argument you keep harping on… Foles was the starter the following season. And you know who else was a backup quarterback and only wound up playing in a Super Bowl because the starter got injured? Tom Brady.
This is how disingenuous you are.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 17:50:13 GMT
Thank you. And it is 'Stupid'. You might not have the most talented team on paper full of superstar names; however there's intangibles that go into winning titles Look at the Lakers. Full of star 'names' but are horrid. You do not luck your way an entire season beating other elite teams on your way to a title.You may take a step back the next year; however again there are intangibles at play. You're no 'Fluke'. It is incredibly hard to win a Championship. As seen - it is incredibly hard to repeat. There's another team on the field (an elite team when you get deep in the playoffs) Agree with this completely. But there are always 'intangibles at play.' You either overcome them or you don't. And one title surrounded by mediocrity makes the title look flukey. Yes. Every team that did not repeat (97% in sports) I guess = Flukey
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 17:52:25 GMT
Glad you're alive and well Frogs. We were pretty you had been murdered. Glad you're OK. Not so glad you're doing this shit again, but glad to have you back nonetheless. How am I wrong? A team in sports who wins a title is not a 'Fluke'It's not an individual winning a single game - it is a season of games stretched out throughout a season vs. other elite teams It is not a boxer knocking out another boxer with a lucky punch.
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jan 26, 2023 17:52:27 GMT
This is what I find so subjective about discussions like this: about flukes. I mean, what is a fluke?
Is every champion team that only won 1 title a fluke? Do you have to win back-to-back titles to not be a fluke? What about teams that when multiple championships divided by years where they didn’t repeat? Are they a dynasty - or a team that strung together 2 or more flukes over a number of years?
Do you have to have all your same starters when more than once or just the same quarterback? What about when the ‘skins won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks? Were they a fluke because of that? What about if you only one won championship but got to 2 or more conference championships in that same span of time - does that not make you a fluke compared to a team that didn’t get to any other conference championships and only won one?
You know this is where everyone gets into making up their own qualifiers and rules…
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 17:54:13 GMT
How am I wrong? A team in sports who wins a title is not a 'Fluke'It's not an individual winning a single game - it is a season of games stretched out throughout a season vs. other elite teams It is not a boxer knocking out another boxer with a lucky punch. You're right Winning a Championship in team sports is the equivalent to throwing a bullseye in Darts - Flukey and Luck
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jan 26, 2023 17:57:48 GMT
I guess it depends on how you would define “fluke”. I don’t think Foles Super Bowl performance was a fluke. If you put him in the right offense and put a great offensive line in front of him he can play on an elite level. When you look at when he played really well in his career that’s what he had going for him. That’s why he played so well in Super Bowl LII. But if he has an average or poor offensive line he turns into a horrible, disastrous quarterback! Look at the early part of his career, those teams he was playing on. That’s what he had. And not necessarily the best offensive systems for his style of play. A truly elite quarterback should be able to overcome some of that. But Foles is this odd enigma where he can’t. In fact he completely unravels. Which is why it looked like his career was over at one point. Foles played great the next season having those same ideal circumstances. But when the Eagles O line got worse and he was sometimes forced to use other offensive plays not fitting his style… Well, they let him go to Jacksonville. So that tells you all you need to know. If you put Foles back into those ideals then he could probably be a starter right now (somewhere). So… you could argue that as a career quarterback he’s a fluke. But again I don’t think his Super Bowl performance was a fluke. The entirety of his career says otherwise, but ok. Well that’s just it? He had 2 good years and the rest of his career was garbage. But does that mean his performance in the Super Bowl was just luck? As my post before this one says - this is where everybody starts getting into using their own qualifiers. Which is why I’m not a fan of arguments about flukes. It’s way to open to too much subjectivity.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 18:01:12 GMT
This is what I find so subjective about discussions like this: about flukes. I mean, what is a fluke? Is every champion team that only won 1 title a fluke? Do you have to win back-to-back titles to not be a fluke? What about teams that when multiple championships divided by years where they didn’t repeat? Are they a dynasty - or a team that strung together 2 or more flukes over a number of years? Do you have to have all your same starters when more than once or just the same quarterback? What about when the ‘skins won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks? Were they a fluke because of that? What about if you only one won championship but got to 2 or more conference championships in that same span of time - does that not make you a fluke compared to a team that didn’t get to any other conference championships and only won one? You know this is where everyone gets into making up their own qualifiers and rules…Or, like the guy you're agreeing with, pretend not to understand the argument of the other person. Me: It's not a fluke because you didn't repeat, it's a fluke because you didn't come close to contending for another title in the next four seasons. Him: Oh I get it, every team that doesn't repeat is a fluke. Gotcha. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here. It shouldn't be that hard to quantify consistent success. Do you think going 9-7 and never making it past the divisional round is the same level of success as winning the Super Bowl? That's a rhetorical question (I hope). All of your questions were already answered in the thread. Go to more conference championships, at least be in the conversation for winning a title. That's the bar once you've won, it's not that complicated. And by the way, this is a fluid situation. If the Eagles win the title this year, and start becoming regular players in conf championships at least, that forces us to reevaluate the 2017 season because the organization will have shown it consistently build competitive teams over a long period of time. But at the moment, this is where we are.
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jan 26, 2023 18:03:01 GMT
And yet you’re still losing the argument! LOL And that backup quarterback argument you keep harping on… Foles was the starter the following season. And you know who else was a backup quarterback and only wound up playing in a Super Bowl because the starter got injured? Tom Brady.
This is how disingenuous you are.
Okay… so Tom Brady was not the starter of Super Bowl 34 because Drew Bledsoe was not cleared to play?? Please! Just stop it… LOL
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 18:05:19 GMT
This is what I find so subjective about discussions like this: about flukes. I mean, what is a fluke? Is every champion team that only won 1 title a fluke? Do you have to win back-to-back titles to not be a fluke? What about teams that when multiple championships divided by years where they didn’t repeat? Are they a dynasty - or a team that strung together 2 or more flukes over a number of years? Do you have to have all your same starters when more than once or just the same quarterback? What about when the ‘skins won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks? Were they a fluke because of that? What about if you only one won championship but got to 2 or more conference championships in that same span of time - does that not make you a fluke compared to a team that didn’t get to any other conference championships and only won one? You know this is where everyone gets into making up their own qualifiers and rules… Via Merriam-Webster - Fluke - 'A stroke of luck'So as you can see. You go 13-3 during the rigons of an NFL Season, beat 2 other well-rouded teams in the playoffs, only to put up 41 points on the Pats and win the Super Bowl - by ' A stroke of luck'
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jan 26, 2023 18:07:18 GMT
This is what I find so subjective about discussions like this: about flukes. I mean, what is a fluke? Is every champion team that only won 1 title a fluke? Do you have to win back-to-back titles to not be a fluke? What about teams that when multiple championships divided by years where they didn’t repeat? Are they a dynasty - or a team that strung together 2 or more flukes over a number of years? Do you have to have all your same starters when more than once or just the same quarterback? What about when the ‘skins won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks? Were they a fluke because of that? What about if you only one won championship but got to 2 or more conference championships in that same span of time - does that not make you a fluke compared to a team that didn’t get to any other conference championships and only won one? You know this is where everyone gets into making up their own qualifiers and rules…Or, like the guy you're agreeing with, pretend not to understand the argument of the other person. Me: It's not a fluke because you didn't repeat, it's a fluke because you didn't come close to contending for another title in the next four seasons. Him: Oh I get it, every team that doesn't repeat is a fluke. Gotcha. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here. It shouldn't be that hard to quantify consistent success. Do you think going 9-7 and never making it past the divisional round is the same level of success as winning the Super Bowl? That's a rhetorical question (I hope). All of your questions were already answered in the thread. Go to more conference championships, at least be in the conversation for winning a title. That's the bar once you've won, it's not that complicated. And by the way, this is a fluid situation. If the Eagles win the title this year, and start becoming regular players in conf championships at least, that forces us to reevaluate the 2017 season because the organization will have shown it consistently build competitive teams over a long period of time. But at the moment, this is where we are. Where did you ever say that if you don’t repeat it’s a fluke? Maybe I missed it in one of your posts. But I didn’t see you saying that. If I had then I would’ve known your standard on the issue and would’ve commented accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 18:10:50 GMT
Yes - making the playoffs the next two seasons after you've won the Super Bowl isn't ' coming close to contending' Nice logic there. Good God.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 18:11:39 GMT
Or, like the guy you're agreeing with, pretend not to understand the argument of the other person. Me: It's not a fluke because you didn't repeat, it's a fluke because you didn't come close to contending for another title in the next four seasons. Him: Oh I get it, every team that doesn't repeat is a fluke. Gotcha. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here. It shouldn't be that hard to quantify consistent success. Do you think going 9-7 and never making it past the divisional round is the same level of success as winning the Super Bowl? That's a rhetorical question (I hope). All of your questions were already answered in the thread. Go to more conference championships, at least be in the conversation for winning a title. That's the bar once you've won, it's not that complicated. And by the way, this is a fluid situation. If the Eagles win the title this year, and start becoming regular players in conf championships at least, that forces us to reevaluate the 2017 season because the organization will have shown it consistently build competitive teams over a long period of time. But at the moment, this is where we are. Where did you ever say that if you don’t repeat it’s a fluke? Maybe I missed it in one of your posts. But I didn’t see you saying that. If I had then I would’ve known your standard on the issue and would’ve commented accordingly. I never did, he's pretending I did because it's an easier point to argue.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 18:13:10 GMT
Yes - making the playoffs the next two seasons after you've won the Super Bowl isn't ' coming close to contending' Nice logic there. Good God. Again, clearly we have different standards. The Patriots went 14-2 in 2010 and shit the bed in the divisional round. No way in hell do I call that a year they contended for a title.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 18:14:10 GMT
Yes - making the playoffs the next two seasons after you've won the Super Bowl isn't ' coming close to contending' Nice logic there. Good God. Again, clearly we have different standards. The Patriots went 14-2 in 2010 and shit the bed in the divisional round. No way in hell do I call that a year they contended for a title. They must have been a Fluke and Lucky
|
|
Surly
Sophomore
@surly
Posts: 913
Likes: 784
|
Post by Surly on Jan 26, 2023 18:17:38 GMT
This is what I find so subjective about discussions like this: about flukes. I mean, what is a fluke? Is every champion team that only won 1 title a fluke? Do you have to win back-to-back titles to not be a fluke? What about teams that when multiple championships divided by years where they didn’t repeat? Are they a dynasty - or a team that strung together 2 or more flukes over a number of years? Do you have to have all your same starters when more than once or just the same quarterback? What about when the ‘skins won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks? Were they a fluke because of that? What about if you only one won championship but got to 2 or more conference championships in that same span of time - does that not make you a fluke compared to a team that didn’t get to any other conference championships and only won one? You know this is where everyone gets into making up their own qualifiers and rules…Or, like the guy you're agreeing with, pretend not to understand the argument of the other person. Me: It's not a fluke because you didn't repeat, it's a fluke because you didn't come close to contending for another title in the next four seasons. Him: Oh I get it, every team that doesn't repeat is a fluke. Gotcha. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here. It shouldn't be that hard to quantify consistent success. Do you think going 9-7 and never making it past the divisional round is the same level of success as winning the Super Bowl? That's a rhetorical question (I hope). All of your questions were already answered in the thread. Go to more conference championships, at least be in the conversation for winning a title. That's the bar once you've won, it's not that complicated. And by the way, this is a fluid situation. If the Eagles win the title this year, and start becoming regular players in conf championships at least, that forces us to reevaluate the 2017 season because the organization will have shown it consistently build competitive teams over a long period of time. But at the moment, this is where we are. That’s where you say we are. But some people might say 4 years out is too far to go back and say that Super Bowl 52 wasn’t a fluke. Some people would say that if the Eagles win this Super Bowl with Hurts it’s a different quarterback, so it has no bearing on redefining SB 52. That’s my point about the subjectivity. But thank you for letting me know what your standard would be.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 26, 2023 18:20:13 GMT
Again, clearly we have different standards. The Patriots went 14-2 in 2010 and shit the bed in the divisional round. No way in hell do I call that a year they contended for a title. They must have been a Fluke and Lucky They won six titles with the same QB. But that's the same as one title and a couple playoff appearances, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 26, 2023 18:20:40 GMT
Or, like the guy you're agreeing with, pretend not to understand the argument of the other person. Me: It's not a fluke because you didn't repeat, it's a fluke because you didn't come close to contending for another title in the next four seasons. Him: Oh I get it, every team that doesn't repeat is a fluke. Gotcha. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here. It shouldn't be that hard to quantify consistent success. Do you think going 9-7 and never making it past the divisional round is the same level of success as winning the Super Bowl? That's a rhetorical question (I hope). All of your questions were already answered in the thread. Go to more conference championships, at least be in the conversation for winning a title. That's the bar once you've won, it's not that complicated. And by the way, this is a fluid situation. If the Eagles win the title this year, and start becoming regular players in conf championships at least, that forces us to reevaluate the 2017 season because the organization will have shown it consistently build competitive teams over a long period of time. But at the moment, this is where we are. That’s where you say we are. But some people might say 4 years out is too far to go back and say that Super Bowl 52 wasn’t a fluke. Some people would say that if the Eagles win this Super Bowl with Hurts it’s a different quarterback, so it has no bearing on redefining SB 52. That’s my point about the subjectivity. But thank you for letting me know what your standard would be. Obviously we're not competitive Super Bowl - 2017/18 Playoffs - 2018/19 Playoffs - 2019/20 Missed Playoffs - 2020/21 Playoffs - 2021/22 NFC Championship Game - 2022/23 We're a fluke and lucky - and not competitive
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 26, 2023 18:21:08 GMT
This is how disingenuous you are.
Okay… so Tom Brady was not the starter of Super Bowl 34 because Drew Bledsoe was not cleared to play??Please! Just stop it… LOL You are dumber than I realized.
|
|