Thread: Urlacher: Veteran teams to have edge

For the love of all that is holy, are we still arguing that old point of which side would we rather have between most wins and most championships? Talk about beating a dead horse to death and six feet into the ground!

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Add in playoff wins

721-693

724-493* you mean.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

This is the part where we disagree. The Bears have been in Championship contention more often than Green Bay? I think not.




So as you see, the Packers actually made the playoffs one more time than the Bears. Very close, but edge packers. So the packers have actually been in championship contention MORE often than the Bears.

Care to dispute?

How about winning seasons?



Here, you can see that the Bears have had one more winning season than the packers

What this says is that the Bears have had more winning seasons, so edge Bears

BUT it also shows that the Packers have had an even record more than the Bears, meaning the Bears have had more losing seasons than the Packers.



Here we can see that the Bears have a much better edge. They won the division more times, which means that the Bears have had five more successful seasons in terms of winning divisions ONLY.


In the end, again, they are very close, but the packers do have the slight edge. AGAIN, VERY CLOSE. But the packers have been in contention for a championship more times than the packers. So that argument does not even hold any water.

In my opinion, four more championships>40 more wins.

I understand that it is not your opinion.


Here ya go, check out the stats for yourself.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/

and what you do not seem to realize or ignoring is the league didn't have any playoffs the first decade+ and the champ was the team with the best record, so as those championships and wins count all time, and the 1921, 1932 and 1933 championships.. but no playoff's, but obviously the team finishing in 2nd was in 'championship contention " that year...

and let's say use the idea of the 1930's for top 2 teams for playoffs and "in champsionship contention"..

bears would make the playoff's in 1921, 1922,1923,1924,1926,1930,1932

packers-1927,1929,1930,1931

or 7 more playoff's to packers 4( 1932 broke into 2 div with a final playoff game)

So that would give the bears 2 more playoff apperance over their history,just saying

Originally Posted by soulman

Benji the answer to this question is obvious but that's what's wrong with being selective about time frames and quoting stats. Your example of the Cubs vs Yankees only works in your favor because the Cubs played more games over more seasons than thje Yanks and has nothing to do with which was historically the better team.

I can take small periods in the stock market and either prove that it averages a 20% annual gain or a 20% annual loss. But, if I take the roughly 90 years of measurable market history it would tell me the SP500 gained an average of around 10% annually over that time period. You can also analyze it using rolling period averages but taking any small section of market history selectively is likely to give you skewed results.

Here, let's make this simple. The Packers and the Bears have been playing an roughly equivalent number of years, correct? Over that period of time the Bears have won significantly more games and it's probably safe to say as a result have been in championship contention more often than GB. The Pack on the other hand has won more Championships but lost more games than the Bears in the interim between those years. The Bears have the higher historical winning percentage as well so on that basis they have been more successful and that is my criteria for long term success.

Your's and Evernights is based soley on Championships won with no regard to below average performance between those Championships. All I'm saying is that I'd rather have a team who's in contention nearly every year than one that goes 15 plus years or more between being in contention. Kind of like the Bears from 1990 through 2005, ya know?

It doesn't matter how you perform between the Championships, all that matters is WINNING the Championships. There is no prize for second place in sports (unless you're counting peewee sports). It doesn't matter if you're in contention if you don't actually win it all. The entire objective of every single professional sport in existence is to win the last game (or in some sports, series of games against the same team) and be crowned the best in the league.

Originally Posted by dabears54

and what you do not seem to realize or ignoring is the league didn't have any playoffs the first decade+ and the champ was the team with the best record, so as those championships and wins count all time, and the 1921, 1932 and 1933 championships.. but no playoff's, but obviously the team finishing in 2nd was in 'championship contention " that year...

and let's say use the idea of the 1930's for top 2 teams for playoffs and "in champsionship contention"..

bears would make the playoff's in 1921, 1922,1923,1924,1926,1930,1932

packers-1927,1929,1930,1931

or 7 more playoff's to packers 4( 1932 broke into 2 div with a final playoff game)

So that would give the bears 2 more playoff apperance over their history,just saying

So now you're trying to make up playoff appearances that never even existed?

No playoffs = no playoff appearances just like no Super Bowl = no Super Bowl appearances.

But hey, if fabricating playoff appearances where no playoffs existed helps you sleep at night then more power to ya.