Top to Bottom

[panthers55]

I'm not downplaying the finish. I said last season not the last 6 games. And what kind of retarded question is that? When the whole point is to win yeah you judge whether a team is good and bad on wins and losses.

So Indy finished 18th in points for and 21st in points against which are both in the bottom half. Are they bad???

[chef17]

So Indy finished 18th in points for and 21st in points against which are both in the bottom half. Are they bad???

 

So you quote a post where I say "When the whole point is to win yeah you judge whether a team is good and bad on wins and losses" then ask me if Indy is bad based solely on rankings? That makes absolutely no sense. And using what I said they obviously weren't since they were 11-5

[panthers55]

Nice try but you might wanna actually go off what I say instead of making stuff up. Obviously a 2-14 team is worse than a 7-9 team. Doesn't change the fact that neither are good.

so how much better are they? A little or a lot. Is a 9-7 team better than a 7-9 TEAM? Indy went 11-5 but were not ranked higher than us in points for or points against. So were they better or did they have a more favorable schedule? Again simplistic thinking only works in some cases.

[panthers55]

What I am simply pointing out is making decisions based on wins alone assumes all other things are equal and they aren't. Your kind of logic appears valid upon first glance but is insufficient with even the most cursory examination.

[iamhubby1]

I'm not downplaying the finish. I said last season not the last 6 games. And what kind of retarded question is that? When the whole point is to win yeah you judge whether a team is good and bad on wins and losses.

Well slow down there slugger. Go ahead and judge teams by your wins and loses. Bad teams lose, good teams win. Easy peasy. You don't have to put any thought into it your way. Win or you suck. Simple logic seems to fit you.

I think you are too caught up in your own opinion. Which is fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

And by the way. Your use of, retarded, goes a long way in disproving your credibility. Do you always stay this calm when you have people that disagree with you?

[DaveThePanther2008]

why am i going to go back ten years before the league started molly coddling the receivers and handcuffed defensive backs?

 

just because it would be convenient for you?

 

Convenient for me?  WTF does that have to do with this discussion.  You are so damn negative that you cannot even see my point.

 

Point is you don't have to have BIG NAMES to play good.

 

Cousin and Howard were average CBs when they came in.  However we had a dominate D-Line and they were more than adaquate.   Which is exactly what I believe we will be this year. 

 

Grant I believe went to Jacksonville after here and his production dropped most likely because his D-Line was no where near as dominate as ours was.  Then he ended his career with the NYG and won a super bowl with a defense that had a top tier D-Line. 

 

What you need to do is put down your NFL trading cards and look at the whole picture.  It is a team event, not individually.  As individuals they may not be Pro Bowl Caliber players but put a good front seven in front of them and poor to mediocre players become good to very good.  In other words we'll be like I said.  AS good as any.

 

I am looking at the whole picture... you're looking at what they did last year (on another team no less) as your gauge on how good we'll be.  Watch and See.

[chef17]

so how much better are they? A little or a lot. Is a 9-7 team better than a 7-9 TEAM? Indy went 11-5 but were not ranked higher than us in points for or points against. So were they better or did they have a more favorable schedule? Again simplistic thinking only works in some cases.

 

Just going off memory I believe Vinatieri had a fair amount of fields goals and they had a pretty good punt return unit which I believe won them some games and the reason I included special teams in my original post.

 

Well slow down there slugger. Go ahead and judge teams by your wins and loses. Bad teams lose, good teams win. Easy peasy. You don't have to put any thought into it your way. Win or you suck. Simple logic seems to fit you.

I think you are too caught up in your own opinion. Which is fine. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

And by the way. Your use of, retarded, goes a long way in disproving your credibility. Do you always stay this calm when you have people that disagree with you?

 

There is a reason division winners make the playoffs and the wildcards go to the teams with the best records. It's not my opinion that determines that, go tell the NFL they need to determine it by what team ends the season 5-1.

 

When a team has a bad record, has an offense that is ranked low in scoring points, has a defense ranked low in allowing points, and has a bad special teams units, that's a bad team. That's not opinion

 

And by the way, your failure to provide any evidence goes a long way in disproving your credibility. Do you always disagree with people without using any relevant facts?

[iamhubby1]

Just going off memory I believe Vinatieri had a fair amount of fields goals and they had a pretty good punt return unit which I believe won them some games and the reason I included special teams in my original post.

 

 

There is a reason division winners make the playoffs and the wildcards go to the teams with the best records. It's not my opinion that determines that, go tell the NFL they need to determine it by what team ends the season 5-1.

 

When a team has a bad record, has an offense that is ranked low in scoring points, has a defense ranked low in allowing points, and has a bad special teams units, that's a bad team. That's not opinion

 

And by the way, your failure to provide any evidence goes a long way in disproving your credibility. Do you always disagree with people without using any sort of facts?

You just told panther55 rankings do not mean a thing. Then use them against me. Flip flop much?

There is no evidence in the world that will dissuade your thinking on this. Why should I waste my time? I am having way too much fun ribbing you. I know I should be ashamed at picking on such an easy target. But damm dude. You are all up in arms over this.

We all get it. Bad teams lose. Good teams win. The end, fineto, come again.

Good teams miss out on the playoffs every year. Does that mean there is something wrong with the way the NFL does things?

Not so good teams make the playoffs every so often. We should probably change the rules so that does not happen. Right?

[chef17]

You just told panther55 rankings do not mean a thing. Then use them against me. Flip flop much?

There is no evidence in the world that will dissuade your thinking on this. Why should I waste my time? I am having way too much fun ribbing you. I know I should be ashamed at picking on such an easy target. But damm dude. You are all up in arms over this.

We all get it. Bad teams lose. Good teams win. The end, fineto, come again.

Good teams miss out on the playoffs every year. Does that mean there is something wrong with the way the NFL does things?

Not so good teams make the playoffs every so often. We should probably change the rules so that does not happen. Right?

 

Considering that isn't what I said no I didn't flip flop. I'm not up in arms about anything. But considering I have nothing better to do currently I might as well post here. I'm not sure how you think you're picking on me but have fun with that. I'll be here all night.

[iamhubby1]

I'm off to bed. So I thought I would leave this here.

There are a lot of variables that go into what makes a good team. Wins and loses are just a part of that.

Things like injuries, schedule, luck, personnel, schemes, how a team is playing, and even who is the QB.

But if wins and loses are all that matter. Why keep track of all that other stuff? Oh yea, because you have to win to be good. All that other stuff is just fodder for us fans.

As long as GB has Rodgers, they will be considered a good team. Any team with an elite QB will be in the discussion. Well, maybe not your discussion, but in normal context of ranking teams.

Got get em' sport.

[iamhubby1]

Considering that isn't what I said no I didn't flip flop. I'm not up in arms about anything. But considering I have nothing better to do currently I might as well post here. I'm not sure how you think you're picking on me but have fun with that. I'll be here all night.

Denial. Now you are letting your emotions get away from you.

[chef17]

Denial. Now you are letting your emotions get away from you.

 

What exactly am I in denial about and what emotions are you referring to?

[Cpt slay a ho]

i guess my amount of fugs given have lowered because its time for these guys to put it all together..........no more bs no more excuses get your ass in gear and get it done, as a fan i will always be excited for panther football as long as Steve Smith is still playing and with players like cam,d will, luke, hardy ect it even more exciting but were lurking i towards browns, lions, raider territory although were run a little better were in the same boat as them a winning season would be a start. btw when did Godfrey become such a horrible safety, he was very solid for us at least last year hopes he improves.

[panthers55]

Just going off memory I believe Vinatieri had a fair amount of fields goals and they had a pretty good punt return unit which I believe won them some games and the reason I included special teams in my original post.

 

 

There is a reason division winners make the playoffs and the wildcards go to the teams with the best records. It's not my opinion that determines that, go tell the NFL they need to determine it by what team ends the season 5-1.

 

When a team has a bad record, has an offense that is ranked low in scoring points, has a defense ranked low in allowing points, and has a bad special teams units, that's a bad team. That's not opinion

 

And by the way, your failure to provide any evidence goes a long way in disproving your credibility. Do you always disagree with people without using any relevant facts?

Division winners like Seattle went  to the playoffs with a 7-9 record a few years ago.  Did they benefit from who was in their division as opposed to who was the best teams or who won the most games that year?? Seattle ranked low in all those areas and made the playoffs despite being what you call a bad team. Then they beat a Saints team that was supposedly a better team.  So your whole better or worse criteria meant nothing.

 To say that you can determine who was best or worse solely based on wins is not even how the NFL works.  Division winners get in and host a playoff game as long as they have the best record in their division regardless of whether there are better record teams out there who don't even make the playoffs.  Why does the NFL do it this way?  Because teams in a particular division play similar competition but teams in different divisions do not.  So keeping things within the division accounts for differences in strength of  schedule and other factors.

 

No one said we were a good team last year but to assume the 7-9 record accounted for everything or that our rankings tell the whole story is naive at best.  We were an awful team the first half of the year and much better the second half.  The change in rankings and the change in wins and losses across the year both support that improvement.  That is fact as well.

 

And this of course wasn't even what we were debating.  I  simply stated by saying that rankings such at 7th or 11th are not very good descriptors and the difference between those could be small in absolute number or large.  Like usual it morphed into this discussion which you are still using too simplistic a logic to account for.