Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Forbes: Cowboys have NFL's most valuable team; Redskins No. 2

tr1

By tr1
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

jnhay

jnhay

Posted
Posted
Right and your missing it.

The NFL Considers the 2000 NFL SEASON thru last year (which ended technically in 2010) the last decade.

You are aware of this, right?

I'll just say this. It's one thing to say "The Cowboys of the 2000s" and another to say "How many playoff wins did the Cowboys have in the 2000s?" The first is what you are referring to, the second is just the English language. Now where is our reward for creating the most worthless off topic discussion of the year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
I'll just say this. It's one thing to say "The Cowboys of the 2000s" and another to say "How many playoff wins did the Cowboys have in the 2000s?" The first is what you are referring to, the second is just the English language. Now where is our reward for creating the most worthless off topic discussion of the year?

"Ken" and "worthless discussions" tend to go hand-in-hand quite a bit in this forum lol :cool:...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigDFan

BigDFan

Posted
Posted
Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

Jan 2000 to Jan 2010 was a decade

Its August That was over a decade ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
Jan 2000 to Jan 2010 was a decade

Its August That was over a decade ago

Yep :yes:...but the comment wasn't "in the last 10 years", so that point you're making is irrelevant. ;)

Actually, here are the original comments:

Even more amazing is that in a span of over a decade, the pukes have only produced on playoff game against a team in its own division.

Forget the AFC, the pukes can't manage to beat anyone outside of the NFCE when it counts.

Too funny.

:ols:

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game.

So tr1 actually said in a time span OVER a decade...fsunoles then claimed that the Skins had "also" only won one playoff game in that timespan. Which, of course, is wrong lol...

Tweed and fsunoles then went into talking about either the 10 years that made up the last decade (Tweed) or the games that made up the last 10 seasons (fsunoles). Funny thing is, though, that fsunoles already acknowledged that you could look at it either way, depending on the individual, and has dropped the subject at that. He's no longer on here arguing it...yet he's one of the two posters who started it all. If he's fine with the different distinctions, why are other Cowboys fans taking up the argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken

Ken

Posted
Posted
"interesting"? Ah, no lol. "Popular"? Eh, maybe...but then again a lot of people here enjoy watching you get owned so that wouldn't surprise me. ;)

Owned huh?

So, I'll acknowledge you won a playoff game in the year 2000 which IS NOT recognized by the nfl as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. While the Cowboys playoff win in 2010 IS recognized as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. Which means, according to the NFL, the Redskins and Cowboys both won 1 PLAYOFF GAME W IN THE DECADE OF THE 2000s.

K...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tr1

tr1

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Owned huh?

So, I'll acknowledge you won a playoff game in the year 2000 which IS NOT recognized by the nfl as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. While the Cowboys playoff win in 2010 IS recognized as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. Which means, according to the NFL, the Redskins and Cowboys both won 1 PLAYOFF GAME W IN THE DECADE OF THE 2000s.

K...?

When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Jones

Mr. Jones

Posted
Posted
When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

You know the two teams to of gone the longest without going to an nfc title game?

Lions and Redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hitman21ST

Hitman21ST

Posted
Posted
You know the two teams to of gone the longest without going to an nfc title game?

Lions and Redskins.

You know who's next? The Dallas Cowboys.

And for what it's worth, the Redskins have the second best record (5-1) of NFC Championship Games of the teams who have been to more than one, behind the Giants, who are 4-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Jones

Mr. Jones

Posted
Posted
Fixed that for ya :thumbsup:...

Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tweedr01

Tweedr01

Posted
Posted
Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

Oh snap!

So did you have a playoff win in the 2000 NFL season or not? I go by the NFL calendar when computing when teams went to the playoffs or not.

It is semantics to say that they went and won a playoff game in 2000, especially when I take "the last decade" as the last 10 years, not the LAST decade that ends in 0. The 2010 season has started, so it is inclusive of the 2000 season.

Dictionary.com says the 1st definition of decade is how I interpreted it. Not how you choose to interpret it to fit your argument.

Uh, this has already been established, you are rehashing an argument that you have already lost, please stop digging your hole.

You're basing your whole argument over one line that wasn't worded correctly, while the entire discussion had already established that they were talking about the 2000-2009 decade. You are aware of how people refer to the 90s, 80s, 70s as decades? This is what is going on here.

How many playoff wins did the Redskins have last decade? 2. It's so incredibly simple.

You do remember you are talking to a puke fan, nothing is incredibly simple, they can turn the 'calculus difficulty' option on to spin their agenda.

"Ken" and "worthless discussions" tend to go hand-in-hand quite a bit in this forum lol :cool:...

Oh snap!! :ols::ols:

Yep :yes:...but the comment wasn't "in the last 10 years", so that point you're making is irrelevant. ;)

Actually, here are the original comments:

So tr1 actually said in a time span OVER a decade...fsunoles then claimed that the Skins had "also" only won one playoff game in that timespan. Which, of course, is wrong lol...

Tweed and fsunoles then went into talking about either the 10 years that made up the last decade (Tweed) or the games that made up the last 10 seasons (fsunoles). Funny thing is, though, that fsunoles already acknowledged that you could look at it either way, depending on the individual, and has dropped the subject at that. He's no longer on here arguing it...yet he's one of the two posters who started it all. If he's fine with the different distinctions, why are other Cowboys fans taking up the argument?

Yup, this was argued from two different viewpoints of how this can be interpreted, but either way, this is a Skins board so my opinion is correct!:beavisnbutthead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fsunoles0021

fsunoles0021

Posted
Posted
There is just so much failure from the pukes in this thread, this is just comical. I am now literally just checking this thread for entertainment purposes while at work, congrats!

Just wondering, but are you a tr1 wannabe? You seem to be trying his gimmicks out and the username seems to be similar too. But unfortunately, there is and can only be one tr1. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjfootballer

pjfootballer

Posted
Posted
Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.

Wow, an "I know you are but what am I," argument. Would have been better if you pulled out the "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you," or "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, we've won more than you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tweedr01

Tweedr01

Posted
Posted
Just wondering, but are you a tr1 wannabe? You seem to be trying his gimmicks out and the username seems to be similar too. But unfortunately, there is and can only be one tr1. Sorry!

Wow, thank you, I'm working on it, but I don't think I'll ever have the ability to rile you crazies up like tr1. It is an honor and I do appreciate the comparison but I am no Mr. ATN. I know they look like gimmicks, but what I'm actually using is the truth, I know it's difficult for puke fans to comprehend the truth.

FYI, I really think after reading SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many tr1 threads, it starts to become second nature to treat puke fans like....well puke fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tweedr01

Tweedr01

Posted
Posted
Wow, an "I know you are but what am I," argument. Would have been better if you pulled out the "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you," or "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, we've won more than you."

Actually, they can't really say that they have won more. Just because puke fans don't count World Championships before they existed, doesn't mean they never happened. If it wasn't for the success we created, they never would have existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.

LoL...the "longer" you speak of is 4 freakin' years. Hardly the type of timespan to gloat over. It's like saying "I may not have been laid in 14 years, but YOU haven't been laid in 18 years! Ha!"...The guys who are getting laid with regularity are just gonna shake their heads and laugh at that comeback lol :ols:...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken

Ken

Posted
Posted
When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

And when tr1 doesn't answer the question and changes the subject, we know we are over the target. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
No_Pressure

No_Pressure

Posted
Posted
:ols: Cowboys fans and 'Skins fans arguing over which owner has milked their hard-working fanbase the most for the least amount of return.

Thats exactly what I was getting at a few pages back. Some people see it as a good sign, that the fans support the team no matter what. Personally I see it as we're all mentally insane and keep wasting our money over and over again.

I'm sure you would probably do the same to some degree if the Giants were sucking balls and ticket prices continued to rise anyway. Most other team's fans have a breaking point though, I guess the Redskins' fan point is generally pretty high up there.

Either way yeah, the franchises are rich and they don't even have to do anything good to become rich. This is not a good message to send to the owners, I'm not sure why people are arguing over who is #1 other than its something that one team could "win" over another. I would compare it to two children at school talking about how their dad could beat up the other kid's dad...only it really isn't beating up, its "my dad is currently viewed as having a slightly higher net value than your dad!".

Woo I can feel the excitement from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...