ksm7 Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 Instead of wasting all that breath, why dont you just say, "yeah, you both gotta point"? No dog, if consistency is the key compnent, then you could put the Lions in there, they've been consistently crappy. If its SB's you measure it by, then keep the Pats in there, and add the Broncos. They are the only two teams w/ multiple SB wins in the past decade. Simple little court jester- the debate is discussing success...the Dog would point out that including detroit in a debate about success because they are consistently "crappy" is, yes, you guessed it, SILLY... Dance for the Dog court jester....DAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....for us all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I've said it before and I'll say it again: It must be tough to be a Giants fan. I really give those of you who stick it out year after year credit though... I think the next time the Giants get embarrassed at home in the first round of the playoffs, NY and NJ should throw a parade with lots of streamers. It's unfair to loyal G-Men fans that all of these recent "successes" are not being recognized and celebrated... Nah this is easy kiddo. Now cowturd fans you guys have it rough. I mean look at you, you've resorted to the role of anti-cheerleader for the Giants, instead of cheering for your own team. But you have my sympathies, as you really don't have anything to cheer about as of late. Would you say the team that's tied for 9th highest winning percentage in this decade is somewhat successful? I would. Only 12 teams have higher winning percentages. Your team on the other hand barely edged out Oakland and San Francisco by .9%. 22 teams have done better thus far in the decade, and only 8 teams have done worse. It's really no wonder that you've given up on your team and ended up here. But look on the bright side kiddo, if your team wins its next 19 regular season games without a loss, you'll just barely be beating the Giants in winning percentage. I know, I know. Winning percentage has NOTHING to do with success, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Nah this is easy kiddo. Now cowturd fans you guys have it rough. I mean look at you, you've resorted to the role of anti-cheerleader for the Giants, instead of cheering for your own team. But you have my sympathies, as you really don't have anything to cheer about as of late. Would you say the team that's tied for 9th highest winning percentage in this decade is somewhat successful? I would. Only 12 teams have higher winning percentages. Your team on the other hand barely edged out Oakland and San Francisco by .9%. 22 teams have done better thus far in the decade, and only 8 teams have done worse. It's really no wonder that you've given up on your team and ended up here. But look on the bright side kiddo, if your team wins its next 19 regular season games without a loss, you'll just barely be beating the Giants in winning percentage. I know, I know. Winning percentage has NOTHING to do with success, right. Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Nah this is easy kiddo. Now cowturd fans you guys have it rough. I mean look at you, you've resorted to the role of anti-cheerleader for the Giants, instead of cheering for your own team. But you have my sympathies, as you really don't have anything to cheer about as of late. Would you say the team that's tied for 9th highest winning percentage in this decade is somewhat successful? I would. Only 12 teams have higher winning percentages. Your team on the other hand barely edged out Oakland and San Francisco by .9%. 22 teams have done better thus far in the decade, and only 8 teams have done worse. It's really no wonder that you've given up on your team and ended up here. But look on the bright side kiddo, if your team wins its next 19 regular season games without a loss, you'll just barely be beating the Giants in winning percentage. I know, I know. Winning percentage has NOTHING to do with success, right. Oh, Boy. This is too much. You kill me. I can see the sign on the side of Giants stadium now: Welcome to Giants stadium. Home to the team tied for the ninth winning percentage of the decade! You guys should really get t-shirts printed up for the home games reading "tied for 9th, only 12 teams higher!" Make it a real marketing campaign! It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything... Can you say LOW EXPECTATIONS? Tied for 9th? God, I love this place! Keep it coming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Oh, Boy. This is too much. You kill me. I can see the sign on the side of Giants stadium now: Welcome to Giants stadium. Home to the team tied for the ninth winning percentage of the decade! You guys should really get t-shirts printed up for the home games reading "tied for 9th, only 12 teams higher!" Make it a real marketing campaign! It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything... Can you say LOW EXPECTATIONS? Tied for 9th? God, I love this place! Keep it coming... Egg, let's not forget it's YOU that keeps talking that "cowboys" are better head to head and better overall sillyness. Now the man proves you wrong and all you come up with now is a silly Giants Staduim sign retort? I'm gonna imagine that I am a child looking for a team to like (say I am 10) and I like winners. The choices come down to the Giants and the Cowboys. Since I like winners (as a kid) and I want to root for a winner, I would have a slight 'lean' towards the Giants. And since I'm a kid that's never seen the Cowboys win a playoff game AND I've heard and SEEN the Giants win a few. Let's throw in a Superbowl appearance in my lifetime...as a 10 yr old I was 3 when the Giants got smoked in the Superbowl. Anyway, the 'kid' should roll with the Giants given all of the facts. It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything ...but you 'brag' about your Cowboys winning 3 Superbowls and then never sniffing a playoff win in ages. What's the diff? Egg, you tend to leave yourself open for a lot of controversy. Again, you are all over the board...trying to 'bash' the Giants. Get real, get a grip, and realize hat just because your Cowboys won 3 Superbowls in a row doesn't make your team so superior over the 'Low Expectation' Giants. Like I've mentioned before, I could see you tryin' to compare the Patriots or the Eagles to the Giants but the Cowboys? Your team isn't that good, for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Simple little court jester- the debate is discussing success...the Dog would point out that including detroit in a debate about success because they are consistently "crappy" is, yes, you guessed it, SILLY... Dance for the Dog court jester....DAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE....for us all! Riiiiigggghhht over your head. Listen poop doggy dogg, I was trying to convey that your measure of success may be a little off. How do you put Philly and Indy in the same list as the Pats when talking about success in the last decade? And you dont include the Broncos? They have ONE SB between the two of em, Eagles and Colts. The Pats and Broncos are the only teams to win more than one SB in the past decade. And you mention Philly??? OH YEAH, I forgot, they are consistent. Consistent chokers in the NFC Champ. game and more recently the SB. Oh, Im sorry, is that your team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Oh, Boy. This is too much. You kill me. I can see the sign on the side of Giants stadium now: Welcome to Giants stadium. Home to the team tied for the ninth winning percentage of the decade! You guys should really get t-shirts printed up for the home games reading "tied for 9th, only 12 teams higher!" Make it a real marketing campaign! It'll be cute, because I doubt anyone has ever heard fans bragging about a football team, at any level, being tied for 9th in anything... Can you say LOW EXPECTATIONS? Tied for 9th? God, I love this place! Keep it coming... I thought you said our expectations were too high, every year. Of course you realize that 9th wasn't an expectation, but the result. Certainly MORE SUCCESSFUL than being on top of 8 teams that are perrenial cellar dwellars (Det, Hou, Ari, etc..). Shameful I know. Laugh it up. It's easier to laugh at our success than it is to admit your own team's impotence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I thought you said our expectations were too high, every year. Of course you realize that 9th wasn't an expectation, but the result. Certainly MORE SUCCESSFUL than being on top of 8 teams that are perrenial cellar dwellars (Det, Hou, Ari, etc..). Shameful I know. Laugh it up. It's easier to laugh at our success than it is to admit your own team's impotence. You said "tied for ninth" right? It's not like they are 10th or 11th...WOW...Tied for ninth...Like I said, get out the streamers and tickertape... It's interesting that there is so much pressure on the Giants' head coach and QB this season, you know, with all of this "recent success"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 You said "tied for ninth" right? It's not like they are 10th or 11th...WOW...Tied for ninth...Like I said, get out the streamers and tickertape... It's interesting that there is so much pressure on the Giants' head coach and QB this season, you know, with all of this "recent success"... This discussion is still going on?? How meaningless is this? In order to make us sound like crazy fans you have resorted to this??? And I would still take having the ninth best winning percentage in the last decade, then no playoff wins and only what, like 2 playoff appearances during that time. You should really stop now. See, what happened if I didnt come back?? Youd be out there bein a schmuck and no one would be here to tell you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 This discussion is still going on?? How meaningless is this? In order to make us sound like crazy fans you have resorted to this??? And I would still take having the ninth best winning percentage in the last decade, then no playoff wins and only what, like 2 playoff appearances during that time. You should really stop now. See, what happened if I didnt come back?? Youd be out there bein a schmuck and no one would be here to tell you!! WELCOME TO THE MEADOWLANDS MEDIOCRELANDS. THE HOME OF THE JETS AND THE TEAM TIED FOR NINTH IN THIS DECADE FOR WINNING PERCENTAGE. WE HAVE NO CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1991 BUT WE ARE TIED FOR NINTH AND SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL THIS DECADE. HA HA HA... I love this place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 WELCOME TO THE MEADOWLANDS MEDIOCRELANDS. THE HOME OF THE JETS AND THE TEAM TIED FOR NINTH IN THIS DECADE FOR WINNING PERCENTAGE. WE HAVE NO CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1991 BUT WE ARE TIED FOR NINTH AND SOMEWHAT SUCCESSFUL THIS DECADE. Question: (You know me with my 'questions')? If you are a Dallas fan and rooted for them since 1994, are you happy with the last decade? (I can admit that the Cowboys have been 'somewhat successful' as far as regular seasons goes....but again are you happy with that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Question: (You know me with my 'questions')? If you are a Dallas fan and rooted for them since 1994, are you happy with the last decade? (I can admit that the Cowboys have been 'somewhat successful' as far as regular seasons goes....but again are you happy with that?) If he's rooted since 94', he's a bnadwagoner. That would probably explain his Baseball team being the Angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 Riiiiigggghhht over your head. Listen poop doggy dogg, I was trying to convey that your measure of success may be a little off. How do you put Philly and Indy in the same list as the Pats when talking about success in the last decade? And you dont include the Broncos? They have ONE SB between the two of em, Eagles and Colts. The Pats and Broncos are the only teams to win more than one SB in the past decade. And you mention Philly??? OH YEAH, I forgot, they are consistent. Consistent chokers in the NFC Champ. game and more recently the SB. Oh, Im sorry, is that your team? Quite simply dear court jester, the Dog was staying with the debate parameters that others here were talking about (you should really try reading entire threads and posts before impulsively diving head first into silliness)...one individual was catagorizing decade as THIS decade, meaning from 2000 onward...if it were a legitimate 10 year decade that was being discussed, quite obviously the Broncos would have to be considered... Go beyond Super Bowl wins to catagorize success...consistent playoff appearances, high winning percentages - those are successful teams...the Dog sees that the Buccanears won the super bowl within the time frame being discussed - are they really a successful team, or a team that had one successful season? how about the raiders - a team that has a low winning percentage in recent years, but did go to a super bowl...success or not? As for the eagles, next to the patriots, during this decade (again, meaning since 2000), they have been to a super bowl, 4 championship games, a number of division titles, and have one of the best winning percentages...that is a succesful franchise- have there seasons ended in utter disappointment? yes. did there seasons come to a crashing halt? yes. Is that true of the giants? pretty much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 You said "tied for ninth" right? It's not like they are 10th or 11th...WOW...Tied for ninth...Like I said, get out the streamers and tickertape... It's interesting that there is so much pressure on the Giants' head coach and QB this season, you know, with all of this "recent success"... But look on the bright side kiddo, if your team wins its next 19 regular season games without a loss, you'll just barely be beating the Giants in winning percentage. I know, I know. Winning percentage has NOTHING to do with success, right. Jeez, if we're not successful that must mean the Dallas Cowturds are the best of the worst of the nfl. Now there's a banner for you. Best of the Worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Quite simply dear court jester, the Dog was staying with the debate parameters that others here were talking about (you should really try reading entire threads and posts before impulsively diving head first into silliness)...one individual was catagorizing decade as THIS decade, meaning from 2000 onward...if it were a legitimate 10 year decade that was being discussed, quite obviously the Broncos would have to be considered... Go beyond Super Bowl wins to catagorize success...consistent playoff appearances, high winning percentages - those are successful teams...the Dog sees that the Buccanears won the super bowl within the time frame being discussed - are they really a successful team, or a team that had one successful season? how about the raiders - a team that has a low winning percentage in recent years, but did go to a super bowl...success or not? As for the eagles, next to the patriots, during this decade (again, meaning since 2000), they have been to a super bowl, 4 championship games, a number of division titles, and have one of the best winning percentages...that is a succesful franchise- have there seasons ended in utter disappointment? yes. did there seasons come to a crashing halt? yes. Is that true of the giants? pretty much... Sounds like a Philly fan to me. The Raiders?? Why mention them? They just went to a SB lately, they didnt win it. But all in all, I agree with this post. It just seems you agree w/ everything eggy says and he measures by SB's wins. You could also throw the Rams and still the Broncos going by these standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Sounds like a Philly fan to me. The Raiders?? Why mention them? They just went to a SB lately, they didnt win it. But all in all, I agree with this post. It just seems you agree w/ everything eggy says and he measures by SB's wins. You could also throw the Rams and still the Broncos going by these standards. the rams is a stretch, and the dog would argue that from 2000 on, the broncos have not been consistent...and just because the dog suggests a team has a successful franchise, does not make him a fan of that team...but keep staying up late at night thinking about it...that crush you have on the dog is becoming slightly embarrassing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Go beyond Super Bowl wins to catagorize success...consistent playoff appearances, high winning percentages - those are successful teams... As for the eagles, next to the patriots, during this decade (again, meaning since 2000), they have been to a super bowl, 4 championship games, a number of division titles, and have one of the best winning percentages...that is a succesful franchise- have there seasons ended in utter disappointment? yes. did there seasons come to a crashing halt? yes. Is that true of the giants? pretty much... Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately? That's if we are talking 'throwing out the 3 Superbowls' and talking recent success. Hmmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishgutmartyr Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Quite simply dear court jester, the Dog was staying with the debate parameters that others here were talking about (you should really try reading entire threads and posts before impulsively diving head first into silliness)...one individual was catagorizing decade as THIS decade, meaning from 2000 onward...if it were a legitimate 10 year decade that was being discussed, quite obviously the Broncos would have to be considered... Go beyond Super Bowl wins to catagorize success...consistent playoff appearances, high winning percentages - those are successful teams...the Dog sees that the Buccanears won the super bowl within the time frame being discussed - are they really a successful team, or a team that had one successful season? how about the raiders - a team that has a low winning percentage in recent years, but did go to a super bowl...success or not? As for the eagles, next to the patriots, during this decade (again, meaning since 2000), they have been to a super bowl, 4 championship games, a number of division titles, and have one of the best winning percentages...that is a succesful franchise- have there seasons ended in utter disappointment? yes. did there seasons come to a crashing halt? yes. Is that true of the giants? pretty much... If we are going back a legitimate 10 years, you'd have to say Tampa Bay was a successful team that has declined since the 2003-2004 season. They were quite good under Dungy, just couldn't make that last jump. and they were 11-5 in 2005. And despite horrendous seasons of 7-9, 4-12, and 3-13; a line that made Cadillac Williams look bad and cost their QB a vital organ, they still have a winning record over the past 10 years; which includes 5 trips to the playoffs, and playoff/superbowl wins. Since no NFC East team can come close to that (the eagles had 4 losing seasons in that time, although their overall win/loss record might be better), I think some respect is due. That team worked hard and earned the hardware. And before any panties get wadded, the eagles (much as I HATE to say it) have been successful as well. Although I take some solace knowing they'll have to go undefeated for 3 seasons to break .500 alltime. One winning season between 1961 and 1978? Wow, they sucked as badly as we did back then... The Giants? Five playoff appearances, a superbowl loss, five games over .500. Meh. The Dallas Badeggs? 73-87, 4 playoff appearances (all one and done). Heh. Just to cheer everyone up, did the Redskins as well: 73-86-1, 2 playoff appearances (2-2). Oops, maybe not so funny for you, Eggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately? That's if we are talking 'throwing out the 3 Superbowls' and talking recent success. Hmmmm? Not as of late...the Dog would argue that they lack consistency and have not accumulated an adequate winning percentage...the dog named the teams that the dog would consider to be successful teams since 2000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 the rams is a stretch, and the dog would argue that from 2000 on, the broncos have not been consistent...and just because the dog suggests a team has a successful franchise, does not make him a fan of that team...but keep staying up late at night thinking about it...that crush you have on the dog is becoming slightly embarrassing... See, now you know why I talk to you the way I do. I even tried to agree w/ you and you still act like a schmuck. Let me help you with a little math. WHen someone is talking about the last decade, that means the last ten years. A decade is ten years, if ya didnt know. SO if someone references the last decade in 2007, that would mean going back to 1997. If you only go back to 2000, that would only be going back 7 years. Remember dog, a decade is TEN YEARS. And evne if you only went back to 2000, and you include the Eagles because of consistent reg. season wins and playoff appearances, then you could include the Broncos. Even the Rams. And the reference to being an Eagle fan, that came because you tried to slip in a derogatory remark about the Giants when referring to the Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 If we are going back a legitimate 10 years....... Since no NFC East team can come close to that (the eagles had 4 losing seasons in that time, although their overall win/loss record might be better), I think some respect is due. That team worked hard and earned the hardware. The Giants? Five playoff appearances, a superbowl loss, five games over .500. Meh. The Dallas Badeggs? 73-87, 4 playoff appearances (all one and done). Heh. Just to cheer everyone up, did the Redskins as well: 73-86-1, 2 playoff appearances (2-2). Oops, maybe not so funny for you, Eggy. Egg will find a 'childish' way to flip this into his 'favor'. Egg will probably say "You guys accept mediocricy" or "must be great rooting for a loser" But in reality his Cowboys are in worse shape than the Giants. That is if we are throwing out Superbowl wins. "Let's hang a banner on Giants Stadium that says we are the 3rd best team this decade in the NFC East".....isn't that crazy? Doff said Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately? Itailian Dog said Not as of late...the Dog would argue that they lack consistency and have not accumulated an adequate winning percentage. Egg? Egg? That's comin' from ya boy! Err the guy who has no NFL team. He isn't partial to the Giants like I am and even HE can see that lately your Cowboys aint that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Egg will find a 'childish' way to flip this into his 'favor'. Egg will probably say "You guys accept mediocricy" or "must be great rooting for a loser" But in reality his Cowboys are in worse shape than the Giants. That is if we are throwing out Superbowl wins. "Let's hang a banner on Giants Stadium that says we are the 3rd best team this decade in the NFC East".....isn't that crazy? Doff said Question? Does the Dog feel that the Cowboys are a 'successful' franchise lately? Itailian Dog said Not as of late...the Dog would argue that they lack consistency and have not accumulated an adequate winning percentage. Egg? Egg? That's comin' from ya boy! Err the guy who has no NFL team. He isn't partial to the Giants like I am and even HE can see that lately your Cowboys aint that good. I love this place. Point to a post in which I am pumping the Cowboys for their performance this decade. You can't. Thus far, it's unacceptable. We expect two or three Superbowls per decade. You see, Cowboys fans expect more. We don't wallow in medicority, as you Giants fans seem to do. This "9th best winning percentage of this decade" argument is embarrassing. However, if you are comparing two franchises, the only accurrate measure of success is head-to-head from the beginning. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I love this place. Point to a post in which I am pumping the Cowboys for their performance this decade. You can't. Thus far, it's unacceptable. We expect two or three Superbowls per decade. You see, Cowboys fans expect more. We don't wallow in medicority, as you Giants fans seem to do. This "9th best winning percentage of this decade" argument is embarrassing. However, if you are comparing two franchises, the only accurrate measure of success is head-to-head from the beginning. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. So, if you Cowgirl fans expect more, 2 or 3 SB's a decade, then wouldnt it be safe to say that you have come in every year w/ SB aspirations, only to have your season come to a crashing end? Like the way you tried to describe us? Pot, meet Kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randoff Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I love this place. Point to a post in which I am pumping the Cowboys for their performance this decade. You can't. Thus far, it's unacceptable. We expect two or three Superbowls per decade. You see, Cowboys fans expect more. We don't wallow in medicority, as you Giants fans seem to do. This "9th best winning percentage of this decade" argument is embarrassing. However, if you are comparing two franchises, the only accurrate measure of success is head-to-head from the beginning. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. Egg you are sayin' the SAME stuff MOST people say. And let me remind you you are on a GIANTS board. Do you expect the fan base here all to be pessimists? Giants fans also 'expect more'! Can't you see that? Or should I copy posts from other Giants posters. Speaking of 'wallowing in mediocrity'.....if the Giants have the slight nod in wins overall AND they have won a few playoff games lately. If what you call that is 'mediocrity' what the heck do you call the Cowboys???? The Patriots???? The ONLY measure for success is 'Head to Head' WOW Egg!!!!! Are you the ONLY Cowboy fan that lives for your team to beat the Giants? For example, I cannot STAND the Eagles but I would not ever say(let me quote YOU) "the only accurrate measure of success is head-to-head from the beginning." Number one, who really cares. Are the Giants winning playoffs? Are the Giants winning divisions? I really don't understand you being a fan and hoping just to be up on a team head to head. "Oh our Cowboys are 4-12, but at least we beat the Giants twice". Number two: Your Cowboys haven't did shit since you've been a fan. But I've said that already. Remember, you are on a Giants Board. What do you expect....Patriot talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadEgg Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 So, if you Cowgirl fans expect more, 2 or 3 SB's a decade, then wouldnt it be safe to say that you have come in every year w/ SB aspirations, only to have your season come to a crashing end? Like the way you tried to describe us? Pot, meet Kettle. You are simple. I said two or three a decade. If I had Superbowl aspirations every year, I would except 10 a decade wouldn't I? Every fan wants their team to win it every year. But you have to be realistic, especially after winning 3 out 4. There is only 1 other team in the history of the game to do that. However, six years into any given decade, you will not see me praising the Cowboys for being tied for the 9th winning record of the decade, especially if their only Superbowl appearance was humiliating. But if that is where the bar is set in NY, if that is the measure of "success" by all means, get out the streamers and the tickertape and enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now