"Quality of Seasons" Ratio

[Doomsday]

The issue is with the use of the term "consistently good." Have the Cowboys been one of the best franchises in the history of the league? Yes. Are they good year in and year out. No. If you are consistently good, you don't go 15 years without a playoff victory.

This is going to be an exercise in semantics?

This isn't a question of semantics, but a question of accuracy.

Statman I am forced to agree with the bolded above and no, it's not a question of semantics, it is a question of correct definitions of words. Use the right terms.

 

[Doomsday]

How is that possible if they have just totally sucked?

No one's said this. You are arguing a straw man here.

 

[Doomsday]

Personally, the reason I think the last 19 years (post last super bowl win) should be isolated are because thats when jerruh has been large and in charge and the salary cap/free agency settled in.

That's right this is two different eras we're talking about. Pre and post salary cap.

Hey Statman, let's limit your entire premise to the post salary cap era, shall we? Let's start this in 1996 how bout?

 

[Dodger12]

If the Cowboys have been so awful, so terrible recently, then how in the hell where they able to capture the NFL lead in regular season winning percentage for all franchises after just this one winning season in 5 years.....because that's what they did.

The very first season in franchise history where they led all teams in all time regular season winning percentage?

The 2009 season. Five years ago. They lost it temporarily after the first half of the 2010 season. How is that possible if they have just totally sucked?

20 consecutive winning seasons and having two coaches who built dynasties will do that for you. It just illustrates how dominant we were and what consistently winning really means. You can thank these two gentlemen.

 

[Statman]

I absolutely refuse to back down, I am using the correct terms in the correct context.

The Dallas Cowboys have never had a losing decade in their history....not even their first.

In every single decade in their history they have won more games than they lost. Every single decade is pretty damned consistent.

con sis tent: (adv): unchanging in achievement or effect over a period of time.

What changed? Did they lose more games than they won in any specific decade?

And what is so convincing about taking a little section of "this" decade" and adding it to a part of "that" decade and claiming , "See! I was able to find an interval of time in which the Cowboys didn't win more than they lost?"

Does anyone understand that in the NFL, consistent winners are separated from the rest of the league by a few percentage points? This is the NFL. Where the weakest teams pick first. Where the strongest teams lose players because of a cap.

The Dallas Cowboys have the highest winning percentage of any team in the league and they have won 57.5% of their games....that's just 7.5% more than "mediocre"... and they are the best!

57.5% translates to an average of a 9-7 season! Get it? All of you guys are trying to use a definition of "consistent" that absolutely doesn't exist in the NFL and hasn't for half a century.

So I will repeat:

The Dallas Cowboys have won more consistently than any team in the NFL, perhaps excepting the Steelers and Dolphins. And that's only because I used the last 45 years. The Steelers absolutely reaked for 40 years prior to that.

The Dallas Cowboys longest streak of losing seasons since 1970 was 5 seasons. 5! There are teams that have had losing streaks 3 times longer...more than once.

The losing streak? It was the last three years of Landry and the first two of Jimmy Johnson. One of the seasons in that streak was 7-8, two more were 7-9. Those 5 seasons were sandwiched between 20 consecutive winning seasons and 6 consecutive winning seasons

Their only other losing streak was 3, the Campo years. So, I tell you what......take those years, the previous year and then the two years after and congratulations! You now have the Cowboys "dark years" (Again, regular season!). You have a six year stretch where the Cowboys had only one winning season and a tie season. How did we ever find the courage to go on living?

Sorry to disappoint you, but that was followed by 5 consecutive winning seasons. No doubt, you now want to convince me that a 6-10 season followed by 3 8-8 seasons is enough to completely eradicate the fact that 23 of their 45 seasons, over half, had double digit wins......and some of them were 14 game seasons! Compare that to 8 seasons in which they had double digit losses.

And then throw in the fact that, big disappointment again, the Cowboys went 12-4 last season and it's going to take some real effort not to win consistently over the next several years.

One more thing.......

Since Jimmy Johnson left, the Cowboys have won more games than they lost. Not good enough? He built the team that won after he left?

Since Barry Switzer left, the Cowboys have won more games than they lost. Since Chan Gaily left they have won more games than they lost. Only if you claim that the "Jones" era started after 1995, can you claim that the Cowboys lost more than they won after Campo left. However, if you decide to be fair and give him from 93, then no.

 

[peplaw06]

The Dallas Cowboys have won more consistently than any team in the NFL, perhaps excepting the Steelers and Dolphins. And that's only because I used the last 45 years. The Steelers absolutely reaked for 40 years prior to that.

Well, that's not what you said before... so you have already backed off your initial position.

They haven't been consistently good.

Now have they been better than most teams when you look at the franchise's history? yes.

I doubt that you would argue that the Dolphins have been consistently good, would you? You bring them up in this thread as an exception to the Cowboys consistently winning more than most teams. They have a great history, but history don't make a shit when you're spending multiple decades not winning Super Bowls or playoff games.

 

[zedthemagnificen]

Our data pool consists of all team's seasons starting with the 1970 season, the first "merged" season where the AFL became the AFC of the NFL. I typically refer to this period as the "modern" age of NFL football because we have 26 to 32 teams instead of half and there is cross conference games in the regular season.

We group each team's seasons into three categories depending on their record. For seasons where the team won 60% to 100% of the games we label that a "good" season. 40% to 59% is an "average" season, 39% or less is a "poor" season.

In a 16 game season a good season would be any record with double digit wins. An average season would be 9-7 down to 7-9, a poor season would be double digit losses.

The totals for each team's categories are totaled and presented as a percentage ratio.

For example:

45-15-40 would mean there were 45% good seasons, 15% average seasons and 40% poor seasons.

The purpose of this excercise to find which teams were consistently good....or poor....or even average. Also, which teams were not.

An historically successful team would not be successful all the time, that is impossible with the parity checks and balances the NFL has employed such as the draft, free agency, salary cap, ect..... Instead, a highly successful team would have the highest percentage at "good" seasons, the second highest at "average" and the lowest at "poor".

Of course poor teams would be the opposite, average teams would be loaded in the middle of the ratio.

These are the results:

TeamQuality Ratio
Cowboys 56-27-18
49ers 56-16-29
Steelers53-36-11
Dolphins49-40-11
Patriots49-24-27
Broncos47-38-16
Ravens47-32-21
Eagles47-24-29
Colts 44-20-36
Redskins42-29-29
Raiders40-33-27
Rams 40-24-36
Vikings38-44-18
Packers38-33-29
Titans33-31-36
Bears31-36-33
Giants31-33-36
Bills 29-31-40
Chiefs27-40-33
Bengals27-38-36
Panthers25-55-20
Jaguars25-30-45
Browns24-31-45
Seahawks23-51-26
Chargers22-44-33
Saints22-42-36
Falcons22-33-44
Jets 20-42-38
Bucs 18-23-59
Lions 16-42-42
Cardinals16-33-51
Texans15-38-46

The Dallas Cowboys lead the NFL in quality seasons. They are tied for 2nd when you subtract the poor seasons from the good ones. The Steelers lead by 4% in this "good-poor margin.

Although many have accused the Cowboys of being "mediocre" lately, the King of Medicore would have to go to either the Seahawks or Panthers, more than 50% of their seasons were average with the good and poor percentages almost even. Such a symmetrical ratio indicates that, not only were they mostly average, but each good season was cancelled by a bad season.

Then again, mediocre could also be equal percentages in all three categories in which case the three most mundane teams would be the Titans, Giants, and Bears.

The most pathetic would have to be the Bucs, followed by the Lions, Texans, and Cardinals.

Another interesting team would be the Rams, who were either really good or really bad, hardly ever average.

The poor seasons for the Cowboys took place mostly in the early 2000's, plus Landry's last year, Johnson's first year, and Switzer's last year. When you can count the poor seasons over 45 years on your fingers then your team was almost always competitive.

In all, the most consistently good teams over the past 45 years have been the Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, and Broncos.

THIS THREAD IS

DUMB
U
M
B

AS
S

FUCK
U
C
K

 

[Statman]

It is simply far beyond your comprehension, I suspect a very common and famiar circumstance.

When people can only express themselves in vulgar common four letter words it indicates an absense of the minimum required cognitive skills for analytical reasoning.

It must be quite refreshing, to be released of any expectations or obligation to think and make some type of relavent contribution to this world.

Anyway, don't wish to keep you away from the cartoon channel. Carry on!

 

[peplaw06]

THIS THREAD IS

DUMB
U
M
B

AS
S

FUCK
U
C
K

Hell of a first post.