PDA

View Full Version : Sorry Dol-fan (this is blasphemy)



Dolphan23
07-10-2006, 07:31 AM
I found this on the yahoo forum board for the Dolphins this morning.This guy is saying he's tired of being a Dol-Fan. Feel free to bash away :)

Every year the same crap for 26 years now.
They will tell you "Next Year we going to the Superbowl"
They are consistence with winning meaningless games and consistence with loosing the Big Ones.
Then they lose and Blame Coach Shula then Jimmy Johnson then Dan Marino and Dave Wannstead.
They blame Ricky for smoking dope
Hell I would shoot heroin if i was on the Dolphins Rooster.
Tired of being a Dolphins Fan

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 08:11 AM
So what? If he or she no longer wants to be a 'Phin fan, that's how life goes. No skin off my back. Just don't let the door hit him on the way out. And don't expect to be treated as anything other than a bandwagon fan when Saban turns the team around.

retired opfinistic
07-10-2006, 08:23 AM
:grouplaug

What a clown! I would understand if he was a Saints fan. :baghead:

trate121hb
07-10-2006, 08:25 AM
let them be.....a person who stops being a dolfan isnt one....let him go

Kinzua
07-10-2006, 09:21 AM
I found this on the yahoo forum board for the Dolphins this morning.This guy is saying he's tired of being a Dol-Fan. Feel free to bash away :)

Every year the same crap for 26 years now.
They will tell you "Next Year we going to the Superbowl"
They are consistence with winning meaningless games and consistence with loosing the Big Ones.
Then they lose and Blame Coach Shula then Jimmy Johnson then Dan Marino and Dave Wannstead.
They blame Ricky for smoking dope
Hell I would shoot heroin if i was on the Dolphins Rooster.
Tired of being a Dolphins Fan

:clap: Lousy grammar and no comment on the poster's loyalty, but the idea is right on the money especially since the Fins aren't going to the SB this year either. :www:

steeda
07-10-2006, 09:53 AM
:clap: Lousy grammar and no comment on the poster's loyalty, but the idea is right on the money especially since the Fins aren't going to the SB this year either. :www:
I can assure you that they'll make it there before Buffalo does. How does it feel to know that you will have complete grasp of last place for this upcoming season and probably next season? :wink:

Enjoy the high draft picks. :)

retired opfinistic
07-10-2006, 10:00 AM
:clap: Lousy grammar and no comment on the poster's loyalty, but the idea is right on the money especially since the Fins aren't going to the SB this year either. :www::sidelol:
:sidelol: :sidelol:
:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
Would have had more substance than your post. Stick to what you do best.
:sidelol: :sidelol:

like2god
07-10-2006, 10:09 AM
:clap: Lousy grammar and no comment on the poster's loyalty, but the idea is right on the money especially since the Fins aren't going to the SB this year either. :www:

:clap:Doesn't make sense and fabricates supposed conversations with FH members, but it's still nice to see Kinzua make an @ss of herself here in the depths. And Buffalo won't be in the SB anytime soon, so don't get your hopes up Patient Zero. :www:

Kinzua
07-10-2006, 10:10 AM
I can assure you that they'll make it there before Buffalo does. How does it feel to know that you will have complete grasp of last place for this upcoming season and probably next season? :wink:

Enjoy the high draft picks. :)

Your crystal ball is that clear, huh? :sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:

Kinzua
07-10-2006, 10:11 AM
:sidelol:
:sidelol: :sidelol:
:sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:
Would have had more substance than your post. Stick to what you do best.
:sidelol: :sidelol:

Love them smilies, Opie!!! :sidelol:

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 10:17 AM
:clap: Lousy grammar and no comment on the poster's loyalty, but the idea is right on the money especially since the Fins aren't going to the SB this year either. :www:It's amazing that someone as stupid as you could still have enough brain power to remember how to breath. If it's best that one should stop supporting a team because it's not going to the SB, then where does such a criteria leave you should you be consistent enough to apply it the Barfalo Jills? Either you're delusional enough to believe they're going to the SB or by your own guidelines, you should stop cheering for them since such an idea would be, as you put it, "right on the money".
I can understand why you'd go blathering about people being hoisted by their own petard (oh, wait, weren't you the one who claimed you "also don't put on airs by using words like 'gormless' (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=134012&page=8&highlight=gormless)"? Instead, you must put on airs by using phrases such as "being hoisted by one's petard".), since yours must be stuck so far up it has to be coming out of one your nostrils.

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 10:25 AM
Love them smilies, Opie!!! :sidelol:We already knew that. Without them, it would be more readily apparent that your comments aren't funny and that your arguments pack all the punch of 3/4 dead sea mollusk.

Kinzua
07-10-2006, 11:20 AM
It's amazing that someone as stupid as you could still have enough brain power to remember how to breath. If it's best that one should stop supporting a team because it's not going to the SB, then where does such a criteria leave you should you be consistent enough to apply it the Barfalo Jills? Either you're delusional enough to believe they're going to the SB or by your own guidelines, you should stop cheering for them since such an idea would be, as you put it, "right on the money".
I can understand why you'd go blathering about people being hoisted by their own petard (oh, wait, weren't you the one who claimed you "also don't put on airs by using words like 'gormless' (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=134012&page=8&highlight=gormless)"? Instead, you must put on airs by using phrases such as "being hoisted by one's petard".), since yours must be stuck so far up it has to be coming out of one your nostrils.


We already knew that. Without them, it would be more readily apparent that your comments aren't funny and that your arguments pack all the punch of 3/4 dead sea mollusk.

Okay, so somebody pee'd in your CoCo Puffs this morning, but it wasn't me!

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 11:32 AM
Okay, so somebody pee'd in your CoCo Puffs this morning, but it wasn't me!Nope, I'm having the time o' my life calling trolls to account for their stupidity. So why don't ya just go back and address the issues instead of resorting to another pathetic attempt at trying to avoid them?

Kinzua
07-10-2006, 11:36 AM
Nope, I'm having the time o' my life calling trolls to account for their stupidity. So why don't ya just go back and address the issues instead of resorting to another pathetic attempt at trying to avoid them?

What "issues" am I supposed to address?

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 11:46 AM
What "issues" am I supposed to address?Well, we could start with your complete lack of reading comprehension, since you quoted two of my posts and are obviously incapable of understanding what I wrote in them (otherwise you'd be able to figure out the answer to your question for yourself). But, in the interests of simplifying things for the simpleminded such as yourself, here goes:

1) "If it's best that one should stop supporting a team because it's not going to the SB, then where does such a criteria leave you should you be consistent enough to apply it the Barfalo Jills? Either you're delusional enough to believe they're going to the SB or by your own guidelines, you should stop cheering for them since such an idea would be, as you put it, 'right on the money'".
2) "weren't you the one who claimed you 'also don't put on airs by using words like 'gormless' (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=134012&page=8&highlight=gormless)'? Instead, you must put on airs by using phrases such as 'being hoisted by one's petard'".
3) "We already knew that [you loved smilies]. Without them, it would be more readily apparent that your comments aren't funny and that your arguments pack all the punch of 3/4 dead sea mollusk."
I understand that you're slow and all, but please do try to keep up.

like2god
07-10-2006, 11:50 AM
Okay, so somebody pee'd in your CoCo Puffs this morning, but it wasn't me!

And after you are finished addressing EMB's issues I want you to clear this one up for me. :lol:


Last time you were bragging you were from Manhattan ... you really ought to try to keep your stories straight, sweetpea. :sidelol:

When did I ever say that I lived anywhere but in central NY??? Could it be that you were fabricating facts and conversations yet again? I'll be waiting for a reply Zero. :whistle:

.

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 11:54 AM
Could it be that you were fabricating facts and conversations yet again? I'll be waiting for a reply Zero.No, it was the voices... in... her/his/its... head... that... told... her/him/it (that was the night she/he/it forgot to wear the tinfoil hat).

like2god
07-10-2006, 11:57 AM
No, it was the voices... in... her/his/its... head... that... told... her/him/it (that was the night she/he/it forgot to wear the tinfoil hat).

That makes a lot of sense, but I want to hear the twisted logic that he/she/it/they come up with to explain it. :lol:

.

STANK-STASH
07-10-2006, 01:41 PM
Dolphins Rooster... Dolphins Rooster? He should just stop watching football in general and go attend some spelling courses. Stupid little rooster.

like2god
07-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Dolphins Rooster... Dolphins Rooster? He should just stop watching football in general and go attend some spelling courses. Stupid little rooster.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing, I just assumed that he wanted some Dolphins c*ck and that's why he wanted to shoot himself in the head. :confused2 BTW I heard that he roots for the Pansies now.

He was very incoherent in his statement. :lol:

.

Shula Come Back!
07-10-2006, 05:30 PM
He sounds like a loser who needs spell check

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 07:50 PM
That makes a lot of sense, but I want to hear the twisted logic that he/she/it/they come up with to explain it. :lol:I don't think the poor thing understands what logic, or good argumentation for that matter, is.

Metal Panda
07-10-2006, 09:12 PM
I found this on the yahoo forum board for the Dolphins this morning.This guy is saying he's tired of being a Dol-Fan. Feel free to bash away :)

Every year the same crap for 26 years now.
They will tell you "Next Year we going to the Superbowl"
They are consistence with winning meaningless games and consistence with loosing the Big Ones.
Then they lose and Blame Coach Shula then Jimmy Johnson then Dan Marino and Dave Wannstead.
They blame Ricky for smoking dope
Hell I would shoot heroin if i was on the Dolphins Rooster.
Tired of being a Dolphins Fan

Oh the trials and tribulations....NOBODYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY KNOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWS....THE TROUBLEEEEEEEEEEE....

Jesus christ, he acts like the Dolphins are the Cardinals. Dolphin fans can sure whine a lot for a team that's never had to endure much in the way of turmoil.

EBMisfit
07-10-2006, 10:07 PM
he acts like the Dolphins are the Cardinals. Dolphin fans can sure whine a lot for a team that's never had to endure much in the way of turmoil.Good point. Few NFL teams, if any, have been as consistently good year in and year out as the Dolphins.

Kinzua
07-11-2006, 08:32 AM
Good point. Few NFL teams, if any, have been as consistently good year in and year out as the Dolphins.

That's exactly the YAHOO poster's point. The Fishies win lots of games during the season, and get lots of hype about being Super Bowl "contenders", but the fact is that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 21 years, Conference Finals in 14 years, or even to the playoffs in 5 years. It's happening again this year. Every media maven in the business has Miami at least a Super Bowl long-shot.

Alex44
07-11-2006, 08:41 AM
That's exactly the YAHOO poster's point. The Fishies win lots of games during the season, and get lots of hype about being Super Bowl "contenders", but the fact is that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 21 years, Conference Finals in 14 years, or even to the playoffs in 5 years. It's happening again this year. Every media maven in the business has Miami at least a Super Bowl long-shot.

Let me tell you a joke :D

What is the difference between the Dolphins and the Bills

(Kinzua says: What)

The Dolphins have won a superbowl

But you should be proud to be part of an elite group of teams to never win a superbowl, sad thing is the other teams will all probally win one before you...even the Saints are going in the right direction

Kinzua
07-11-2006, 10:07 AM
Let me tell you a joke :D

What is the difference between the Dolphins and the Bills

(Kinzua says: What)

The Dolphins have won a superbowl

But you should be proud to be part of an elite group of teams to never win a superbowl, sad thing is the other teams will all probally win one before you...even the Saints are going in the right direction

ha ha NOT!

You need to work on your material a whole lot more, Alex. It's not ready for the "Family Hour" much less for "Prime Time". :D

Alex44
07-11-2006, 10:25 AM
ha ha NOT!

You need to work on your material a whole lot more, Alex. It's not ready for the "Family Hour" much less for "Prime Time". :D

Im glad I wasnt funny when I wasnt trying to be :tongue:

It must really suck being a Bills fan and have NEVER won a superbowl....or is it okay since your hardly ever expected to compete :confused:

like2god
07-11-2006, 11:24 AM
Im glad I wasnt funny when I wasnt trying to be :tongue:

It must really suck being a Bills fan and have NEVER won a superbowl....or is it okay since your hardly ever expected to compete :confused:

AHHH that is where you are wrong Alex. Buffalo does compete very hard every year, you don't get into the top 10 of the football draft by accident. It takes a lot of effort and commitment to be one of the worst teams year in and year out. I don't think you realize how much of a struggle it is to try and wrestle away the top picks in the draft.

It all starts with the owner like with every sports franchise. If you have a penny pinching whiny owner like the Barfalo Jills then you have already won half of the battle. Next you need to assemble a group of decision makers who have no idea what they are doing so you have the best chances of securing a "good" draft spot. Now, it is the job of those baffoonish front office clowns to go out there and find the players that will come to the stadium every Sunday and give a half-assed effort. And this year the Jills did a very good job at wasting the #8 draft pick on a guy who would have been there at pick #18. They also drafted another guy in the first round who was a late second round pick at best. But the real gem came later on when they picked up a real class act in Brad Butler, a guy who tried to cripple another player during a game against Boston College. He should be good for at least 3 penalities a game a $100,000 in fines. Good pick up for them.

Add all of that into the mix with an oline that makes pee wee football teams die of laughter and a quarterback who has all of the skills to be the very best Browning Nagle clone since .....well Browning Nagle. Who is Browning Nagle you ask? Exactly.

No Alex, Barfalo isn't an organization that fools around when it comes to draft position, they take it very seriously.

Alex44
07-11-2006, 11:27 AM
AHHH that is where you are wrong Alex. Buffalo does compete very hard every year, you don't get into the top 10 of the football draft by accident. It takes a lot of effort and commitment to be one of the worst teams year in and year out. I don't think you realize how much of a struggle it is to try and wrestle away the top picks in the draft.

It all starts with the owner like with every sports franchise. If you have a penny pinching whiny owner like the Barfalo Jills then you have already won half of the battle. Next you need to assemble a group of decision makers who have no idea what they are doing so you have the best chances of securing a "good" draft spot. Now, it is the job of those baffoonish front office clowns to go out there and find the players that will come to the stadium every Sunday and give a half-assed effort. And this year the Jills did a very good job at wasting the #8 draft pick on a guy who would have been there at pick #18. They also drafted another guy in the first round who was a late second round pick at best. But the real gem came later on when they picked up a real class act in Brad Butler, a guy who tried to cripple another player during a game against Boston College. He should be good for at least 3 penalities a game a $100,000 in fines. Good pick up for them.

Add all of that into the mix with an oline that makes pee wee football teams die of laughter and a quarterback who has all of the skills to be the very best Browning Nagle clone since .....well Browning Nagle. Who is Browning Nagle you ask? Exactly.

No Alex, Barfalo isn't an organization that fools around when it comes to draft position, they take it very seriously.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: and in case you didnt see it :lol:



That is the best post ever :sidelol:

Kinzua
07-11-2006, 12:18 PM
Im glad I wasnt funny when I wasnt trying to be :tongue:

It must really suck being a Bills fan and have NEVER won a superbowl....or is it okay since your hardly ever expected to compete :confused:

Then why did you call it a joke??? :confused2

It must really suck being a Miami fan when the last time the Fishies lost a Super Bowl was about five years before you were born!

Just for you, I'll repeat myself. The guy who posted on Yahoo was po'd because just about every year, the Fishies are hyped as Super Bowl "contenders" but they've come up short despite winning lots of regular season games. Five years without a playoff appearance. Fourteen years since last losing an AFC Conference title. Twenty-one years since last losing a Super Bowl.

The only Miami fans who actually remember the Fishies winning a Super Bowl are old enough to be your grandparents!

cnc66
07-11-2006, 12:36 PM
HEY! I resemble that remark!!!

Kinzua
07-11-2006, 12:47 PM
HEY! I resemble that remark!!!

Do you actually remember the games, though? I remember Garo Ypremian's (sp) QB impersonation that almost lost the game for the Fish, but that's about all I remember, and I can't remember if that was the first or second win.

Back then, though, it was still the AFL vs the NFL. I think it was the Fins' back-to-back titles that erased much of the stigma from the old AFL teams, and the Steelers' four wins in the '70s blurred the AFL/NFL distinctions even more.

EBMisfit
07-11-2006, 04:42 PM
That's exactly the YAHOO poster's point. The Fishies win lots of games during the season, and get lots of hype about being Super Bowl "contenders", but the fact is that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 21 years, Conference Finals in 14 years, or even to the playoffs in 5 years. It's happening again this year. Every media maven in the business has Miami at least a Super Bowl long-shot.Please, please, please start getting some oxygen to your brain cells. Evidently, the ones used for reading comprehension died out a long time ago, since you missed my point: THERE ARE FEW, IF ANY, NFL TEAMS THAT HAVE BEEN AS CONSISTENTLY AS GOOD AS THE DOLPHINS. Last time I checked, if one is consistently something, it's better to be consistently good than bad. But you and he keep acting like the 1/8 of the glass that's empty is more important than the 7/8 that's full. How many other NFL teams have as good a winning percentage as the 'Phins? Have fewer losing seasons? Been to the playoffs more? The Dolphins have missed the playoffs the last 4 years? Sounds bad... until one puts it in perspective. How many other teams would like to say that the worst playoff drought they've suffered is 4 years? My guess is that about 7/8 of the teams out there would exchange their record in at least one of the previous categories with the Dolphins in a heartbeat.
As for me, I don't care whether the Dolphins are 16-0 or 0-16... they always have been and ever will be my team.

EBMisfit
07-11-2006, 04:50 PM
It must really suck being a Miami fan when the last time the Fishies lost a Super Bowl was about five years before you were born!Then it must suck more being a Jills fan when the last time the Jills won a Super Bowl was... why, it's been so long I can't remember. Mind reminding me?

Just for you, I'll repeat myself. The guy who posted on Yahoo was po'd because just about every year, the Fishies are hyped as Super Bowl "contenders" but they've come up short despite winning lots of regular season games.:boohoo:Again, being able to say that they were contenders year after year would be, for just about every team out there, an enviable position.

And I see you still seem to be hesitant to discuss the issues I raised in #16 (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showpost.php?p=2609157&postcount=16).

Mike13
07-11-2006, 10:19 PM
It must suck being Kinzua.

retired opfinistic
07-12-2006, 12:14 AM
It must suck being Kinzua.It must suck worse being her bicycle seat.

Kinzua
07-12-2006, 09:41 AM
Please, please, please start getting some oxygen to your brain cells. Evidently, the ones used for reading comprehension died out a long time ago, since you missed my point: THERE ARE FEW, IF ANY, NFL TEAMS THAT HAVE BEEN AS CONSISTENTLY AS GOOD AS THE DOLPHINS. Last time I checked, if one is consistently something, it's better to be consistently good than bad. But you and he keep acting like the 1/8 of the glass that's empty is more important than the 7/8 that's full. How many other NFL teams have as good a winning percentage as the 'Phins? Have fewer losing seasons? Been to the playoffs more? The Dolphins have missed the playoffs the last 4 years? Sounds bad... until one puts it in perspective. How many other teams would like to say that the worst playoff drought they've suffered is 4 years? My guess is that about 7/8 of the teams out there would exchange their record in at least one of the previous categories with the Dolphins in a heartbeat.
As for me, I don't care whether the Dolphins are 16-0 or 0-16... they always have been and ever will be my team.

It's about the hype not the actual record. When people are continually led to believe that a team is a whole lot better than it is, they get angry when that team doesn't perform up to the "experts'" predictions. That's what the guy was saying.

Look at this upcoming season -- realistically. Posters keep predicting a 12 or 13 win season and a Super Bowl berth, a lot of that fed by all the "predicitons" coming from the media. Making the playoffs and winning the division is a fore-gone conclusion.

The fact is, for any team to make 12 or 13 wins and a SB appearance, a lot of things have to go right and nothing can go wrong, and it's unlikely that any particular team will do that in a particular season, no matter how good they are, and the Dolphins are far from a powerhouse team. They don't have the offensive line or defensive backfield to get them to the Super Bowl except by some freakish circumstance, so the chances are that the over-hyped expectations of a lot of Fish Fans will be dashed again, even if the Fish make the playoffs.

nyjunc
07-12-2006, 09:47 AM
I found this on the yahoo forum board for the Dolphins this morning.This guy is saying he's tired of being a Dol-Fan. Feel free to bash away :)

Every year the same crap for 26 years now.
They will tell you "Next Year we going to the Superbowl"
They are consistence with winning meaningless games and consistence with loosing the Big Ones.
Then they lose and Blame Coach Shula then Jimmy Johnson then Dan Marino and Dave Wannstead.
They blame Ricky for smoking dope
Hell I would shoot heroin if i was on the Dolphins Rooster.
Tired of being a Dolphins Fan

Sounds accurate to me:D

EBMisfit
07-12-2006, 09:44 PM
Sounds accurate to me:DAnd yet, the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years....

EBMisfit
07-12-2006, 10:25 PM
It's about the hype not the actual record.Then maybe a better solution would be to stop listening to the hype, rather than to stop being a fan of a certain team? Even still, I'd prefer to root for a team that often gets picked to go to the SB year after year, but fails by "only" having winning records and getting to the playoffs consistently than a team that no one predicts them to do anything year after year and they manage to spectacularly fulfull such expectations. Why, it's almost like I'm talking about the Dolphins on the one hand and the non-'90's Jills, the pre-'96 Patsies or the Jests pretty much since the merger on the other.

Get angry? I have no problem with that. Stop being fans of their team because of it? If so, then they're only fairweather fans and bandwagonners anyway. If he's so "tired of being a Dolphins fan", then good riddance.
[quote=Kinzua]Making the playoffs and winning the division is a fore-gone conclusion.Hmm, just noticed that you added a hyphen to "foregone" just like the guy that "likes2guys" mentioned in the "I can't believe..." thread (#78 (http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showpost.php?p=2614753&postcount=78)) added a hyphen to "earthbound". Odd, maybe even to the point of being suspicious.

the Dolphins are far from a powerhouse team.Like anyone was predicting the Patsies, especially after Bledsoe went down, to take trophy in 2001? Or the Ravens in 2000? Or a Rams-Titans matchup in 1999? I'm not saying the Dolphins will be that kind of team this year, just that only time will tell.

nyjunc
07-13-2006, 05:43 AM
And yet, the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years....

Most of that is ancient history and how many of those better years led to Championships?

Alex44
07-13-2006, 06:04 AM
Then why did you call it a joke??? :confused2

It must really suck being a Miami fan when the last time the Fishies lost a Super Bowl was about five years before you were born!

Just for you, I'll repeat myself. The guy who posted on Yahoo was po'd because just about every year, the Fishies are hyped as Super Bowl "contenders" but they've come up short despite winning lots of regular season games. Five years without a playoff appearance. Fourteen years since last losing an AFC Conference title. Twenty-one years since last losing a Super Bowl.

The only Miami fans who actually remember the Fishies winning a Super Bowl are old enough to be your grandparents!


I like not remembering losing superbowls....but I guess as a B.I.L.L.S fan you dont get that feeling

Boy
I
Love
Losing
Superbowls

And the only people who remember the Bills winning a superbowl are mentally ill......because it never happend

EBMisfit
07-13-2006, 07:53 AM
Most of that is ancient history
Funny how everything that Jills, Jests, and, to a lesser extent, Patsy fans don't like gets relegated to "ancient history". I have yet to hear an objective standard by which "ancient history" is delineated from "modern", instead of all this arbitrarily choosing a year that favors a particular team.

and how many of those better years led to Championships?Another funny thing is when I want to argue that the Dolphins have been better than the Jests over the years, it's only championships that matter to you, but when you wanted to claim that the Jests were better in 1998 than the Dolphins a while back, you based your argument on the Jests losing in the Conference Championship rather than in a divisional playoff game like the Dolphins.

cnc66
07-13-2006, 08:47 AM
Do you actually remember the games, though? I remember Garo Ypremian's (sp) QB impersonation that almost lost the game for the Fish, but that's about all I remember, and I can't remember if that was the first or second win.

Back then, though, it was still the AFL vs the NFL. I think it was the Fins' back-to-back titles that erased much of the stigma from the old AFL teams, and the Steelers' four wins in the '70s blurred the AFL/NFL distinctions even more.

yea, I actually do remember those days pretty good. The Garo thing will haunt us forever...we would have won that game 17-0, just like our season record...THAT would have been cool. What I will forever be disappointed in is that we lost Kiick, Csonk and Morris to the wfl. I would think that the battles between Miami and P-burg could have been epic. Your observation about the "coming of age" I think is spot on. The 70's were pretty much dominated by the afc which definitely evened the scorecard out as to parity.

EBMisfit
07-13-2006, 05:43 PM
yea, I actually do remember those days pretty good. The Garo thing will haunt us forever...we would have won that game 17-0, just like our season record...THAT would have been cool.I don't know about it really haunting us. Maybe if the Redskins actually came back and won the game, I could see that (which would have required a lot more than just that one play), but I don't hear anyone holding one freak play against them.

Kinzua
07-13-2006, 06:16 PM
I don't know about it really haunting us. Maybe if the Redskins actually came back and won the game, I could see that (which would have required a lot more than just that one play), but I don't hear anyone holding one freak play against them.

That's because it happened so long ago that most Miami fans don't even know about it.

cnc66
07-13-2006, 06:20 PM
I don't know about it really haunting us. Maybe if the Redskins actually came back and won the game, I could see that (which would have required a lot more than just that one play), but I don't hear anyone holding one freak play against them.

I'm haunted....:goof:

EBMisfit
07-13-2006, 07:47 PM
That's because it happened so long ago that most Miami fans don't even know about it.:rolleyes2I would think that "anybody" would also cover those that do remember the game or does that word have a different meaning in the Jills dictionary? Sure, it seemed like a serious matter during the game, but nowadays, it's treated more like a blooper reel. If anything, the playoff games against the Browns and the Steelers were greater threats to Miami's perfect season (both of which, if I recollect correctly, required 4th quarter comebacks) than the SB itself, which Miami still led even after Yepremian's blunder.

EBMisfit
07-13-2006, 08:03 PM
I'm haunted....:goof:Mebbe, but probably nowhere near as much as Jills fans are by Norwood's shank.:D

nyjunc
07-14-2006, 06:24 AM
Funny how everything that Jills, Jests, and, to a lesser extent, Patsy fans don't like gets relegated to "ancient history". I have yet to hear an objective standard by which "ancient history" is delineated from "modern", instead of all this arbitrarily choosing a year that favors a particular team.


How is 1996 relevant to 2006? how is 1984 or 1972 or 73 relevant to 2006? History is great, we should always know our history and look back at it but the facts are Miami has not been close to an AFC Title Game since 1994 and you haven't been a big time team since around that time but you act like you guys have been great and that SBs are destined. You also act like you've won more than 2 SBs and that they have been recent instead of 33 & 34 years ago.



Another funny thing is when I want to argue that the Dolphins have been better than the Jests over the years, it's only championships that matter to you, but when you wanted to claim that the Jests were better in 1998 than the Dolphins a while back, you based your argument on the Jests losing in the Conference Championship rather than in a divisional playoff game like the Dolphins.

I adapt my argument to who I am arguing against. Some folks claim titles, others calim "winning seasons". I throw everything into the hat which is why OBVIOUSLY you guys have had a MUCH better history than we have BUT we have had a better recent history. your better history is a LONG time ago. We may be entering another era of where you guys are consistently better- who knows? We'll find out in the coming years.

EBMisfit
07-14-2006, 12:23 PM
And yet, the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years....
How is 1996 relevant to 2006? how is 1984 or 1972 or 73 relevant to 2006?But we weren't talking about 2006, we were talking about "most of those years"- which means everything from 1974-2006 would be relevant.

I adapt my argument to who I am arguing against.No, what you're doing is changing the criteria to fit your conclusion. If winning championships isn't important in the first argument, then it's not in the second. If it's important in the second, then it's important in the first. Otherwise, there's no consistency.

your better history is a LONG time ago.Unless you define "better" and "long" here, then it's going to be difficult to get an objective discussion about the subject started. But I would say the farthest back you could push this is 1992, which would give the Dolphins an equal number of conference championship appearances (and losses) as the Jests. Since then, the Dolphins have had an additional 4 divisional playoff game appearances (compared to 2 for the Jests) and appeared three more years in wild card playoff games (0 for Jests). They've won the AFC East 3 times vs. twice and have had only 1 losing season vs. 6.

nyjunc
07-15-2006, 09:00 AM
No, what you're doing is changing the criteria to fit your conclusion. If winning championships isn't important in the first argument, then it's not in the second. If it's important in the second, then it's important in the first. Otherwise, there's no consistency.



Whgen neither team has wona Championship in over 30 years it becomes difficult to use Championships as a gauge so I use who's advanced further and who has ahd the chance to advance further. Up until about '97 you were better but the last decade we've been to an AFC title game and had 2 mroe close calls, won 2 div titles to your 1 and dominated you head to head while you guys have not come close to an AFC Title Game and been humiliated out of the playoffs EVERY time you've made it.

EBMisfit
07-15-2006, 10:27 AM
your better history is a LONG time ago.
Up until about '97 you were better....Then unless my deductive reasoning has gone awry, does this mean that you would argue that '97 was a LONG time ago?

nyjunc
07-15-2006, 10:37 AM
Then unless my deductive reasoning has gone awry, does this mean that you would argue that '97 was a LONG time ago?

It's getting there but I think w/in a 10 year span is somewhat recent history, wouldn't you agree? you want to just take the alst 5 years? Then we have 1 div title to zero, we have 3 playoff appearances to 1, we have 2 div rd appearances to none.

EBMisfit
07-15-2006, 11:17 AM
you want to just take the alst 5 years?Why not just take last year, since it's no more arbitrary than the last 5? The 'Phins had a 9-7 record, the Jests 4-12. You still haven't given any reason why the last 5 years are any more objectively "recent" and everything else should be considered "ancient history" than any other time frame. If you want to say that the Jests have been better than the 'Phins the last 5 years, I'll agree. But given that it's about a seventh of the timeframe since the merger, I'd also say that it's a dubious honor in comparison.

nyjunc
07-16-2006, 08:05 AM
Why not just take last year, since it's no more arbitrary than the last 5? The 'Phins had a 9-7 record, the Jests 4-12. You still haven't given any reason why the last 5 years are any more objectively "recent" and everything else should be considered "ancient history" than any other time frame. If you want to say that the Jests have been better than the 'Phins the last 5 years, I'll agree. But given that it's about a seventh of the timeframe since the merger, I'd also say that it's a dubious honor in comparison.

Last year you missed the playoffs and we missed the playoffs, you want to crow b/c you had a better record than an injury ravaged team? well 25% of our wins came against your juggernaut Miami dolphins.

So you think 1973 is relevant to today? Yes I consider any time before I was born to b ancient history in rgeards to sports, I consider the 80s to be ancient history in regards to sports, I consider a 5-10 year window somewhat relevant, 10 might be pushing it but I think it's a fair look back. Either way yuo guys haven't done anything in almost 15 years so it's not close to the 10 yr window.

Kinzua
07-16-2006, 09:55 AM
Last year you missed the playoffs and we missed the playoffs, you want to crow b/c you had a better record than an injury ravaged team? well 25% of our wins came against your juggernaut Miami dolphins.

So you think 1973 is relevant to today? Yes I consider any time before I was born to b ancient history in rgeards to sports, I consider the 80s to be ancient history in regards to sports, I consider a 5-10 year window somewhat relevant, 10 might be pushing it but I think it's a fair look back. Either way yuo guys haven't done anything in almost 15 years so it's not close to the 10 yr window.

That's way too logical. :lol:

EBMisfit
07-16-2006, 11:29 AM
Last year you missed the playoffs and we missed the playoffs, you want to crow b/c you had a better record than an injury ravaged team? well 25% of our wins came against your juggernaut Miami dolphins.The Dolphins still had a better record. According to my subjective criteria, only last year matters and anything else beyond that is "ancient history". If it's ok for you to use subjective criteria to determine what is and isn't "ancient history", then it should be ok for me to do so as well.

Yes I consider any time before I was born to b ancient history in rgeards to sports,Just more subjectivity. Why is what happened before you were born any less important than afterwards? I was born in 1966. How would my using the same standard you do (anything after I was born) any less subjective than what you're doing?

I consider the 80s to be ancient history in regards to sportsAgain, I see no objective basis for how you came to such a determination.

I consider a 5-10 year window somewhat relevant, 10 might be pushing it but I think it's a fair look back.I have yet to see you provide one solid reason why this 5-10 year window should be any more relevant than any other period of time. Why is 10 any more important than 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15 or so on? Instead, it would appear that you find such an arbitrary cutoff period significant because doing so supports your arguments.

Either way yuo guys haven't done anything in almost 15 years so it's not close to the 10 yr window.First, continuing to parrot an arbitrary standard gains you nothing by repeating it over and over again ad nauseum. Second, I never said the Dolphins had done anything in almost 15 years, although I would argue that they accomplished more in that time frame than most NFL teams, among them the Jests. You even admitted that "up until '97 [the Dolphins] were better". Third, such a statement only digs the grave deeper for the Jests. If the 'Phins haven't done anything in the past 15 years, then they haven't done anything since '97. But if they have still been better than the Jests up until that time, that means the Jests have done even worse.

Metal Panda
07-16-2006, 11:39 AM
That's exactly the YAHOO poster's point. The Fishies win lots of games during the season, and get lots of hype about being Super Bowl "contenders", but the fact is that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 21 years, Conference Finals in 14 years, or even to the playoffs in 5 years. It's happening again this year. Every media maven in the business has Miami at least a Super Bowl long-shot.

Your playoff drought has been longer, and your last playoff win was a LOT farther in the distant past than Miami's.

And FYI, there are many teams with worse droughts than Miami. When was the last time the Detroit Lions went to the Conference Championship? When was the last time the Jets went to a Super Bowl?

To be quite honest, the whole "team to beat" cries only really happened recently after the Ricky trade. Sportscasters typically prognosticated Miami to be decent in the regular season but not to do much in the playoffs. I remember a radio show host basically thinking I was crazy that Miami had any shot to win an SB in the next 3 YEARS, back in the 90s, when I called in.

Metal Panda
07-16-2006, 11:40 AM
ha ha NOT!


.

Metal Panda
07-16-2006, 11:42 AM
It's about the hype not the actual record. When people are continually led to believe that a team is a whole lot better than it is, they get angry when that team doesn't perform up to the "experts'" predictions. That's what the guy was saying.


So he's saying that he's mad that the team doesn't play as well as a bunch of sportswriters predict? He must be stupider than you then.

Metal Panda
07-16-2006, 11:42 AM
Most of that is ancient history and how many of those better years led to Championships?

Idiot. "Oh, you've been the better team, but it doesn't matter, you didn't win any titles". Then following a season when you perform better...

"OMG DOLFINS FANS U R TEH SUCK"

you're a grade A moron.

EBMisfit
07-16-2006, 11:47 AM
That's way too logical. :lol:On the contrary, there's not a shred of logic to it, just subjective preference for the base 10 decimal system. If you think you can find a single argument as to why "5" or "10" should be preferable to any other number, feel free to present it to the rest of us.

Kinzua
07-16-2006, 02:32 PM
On the contrary, there's not a shred of logic to it, just subjective preference for the base 10 decimal system. If you think you can find a single argument as to why "5" or "10" should be preferable to any other number, feel free to present it to the rest of us.

Yeah, I will. Football, like everything else, changes over time. Styles of offense and defense change. QBs threw long bombs regularly and it wasn't unusual for DBs to have 10 or 11 picks a season -- a 14 game season at that. The fullback was a still a real position. The 3-4 defense was an innovation. In the 1970s there was no "West Coast Offense". The "play action pass" was another big innovation. The "No Huddle" outside the last two minutes of the half or game didn't come along until Marv Levy and the Bills started running it. Players on both sides of the ball were smaller, especially linemen. I haven't even touched the improvements that have come along in conditioning/training/sports medicine/coaching/scouting, etc.

The further you get away from any event, the less importance it has on current events. What has more influence on the world today? The decisions that George W Bush makes or that Bill Clinton made or the decisions that John Kennedy or Dwight D. Eisenhower made?

Stop making a jackazz of yourself by being stubbornly unreasonable.

nyjunc
07-17-2006, 06:25 AM
The Dolphins still had a better record. According to my subjective criteria, only last year matters and anything else beyond that is "ancient history". If it's ok for you to use subjective criteria to determine what is and isn't "ancient history", then it should be ok for me to do so as well.


You got me there, you guys are great- I mean you did have another "winning season" so that just adds to the legacy of the Miami Dolphins. of course you haven't seen the playoffs since 2001 and a playoff win since 2000 but you have had 3 winning seasons since thenso congrats!:lol: By the way, as bad as we were last year we still beat you.



Just more subjectivity. Why is what happened before you were born any less important than afterwards? I was born in 1966. How would my using the same standard you do (anything after I was born) any less subjective than what you're doing?


I also said I consider the 80s ancient history and I was alive alive and can remember just about all of it. Again I think 10 years is pushing it but i can understand how a 10 yr block can be considered current. When our Championship teams have grandkids that are HS and college graduates you know it's not relevant.



Again, I see no objective basis for how you came to such a determination.


so you think what David woodley did w/ ndra Franklin, Nat Moore, jimmy Cefalo, etc... is relevant to what Daunte and Ronnie Brown and co. will do?


I have yet to see you provide one solid reason why this 5-10 year window should be any more relevant than any other period of time. Why is 10 any more important than 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15 or so on? Instead, it would appear that you find such an arbitrary cutoff period significant because doing so supports your arguments.


Again I think 10 is pushing it but at least there are players still playing that played 10 years ago.



First, continuing to parrot an arbitrary standard gains you nothing by repeating it over and over again ad nauseum. Second, I never said the Dolphins had done anything in almost 15 years, although I would argue that they accomplished more in that time frame than most NFL teams, among them the Jests. You even admitted that "up until '97 [the Dolphins] were better". Third, such a statement only digs the grave deeper for the Jests. If the 'Phins haven't done anything in the past 15 years, then they haven't done anything since '97. But if they have still been better than the Jests up until that time, that means the Jests have done even worse.

If we are looking at 15 years then you were better '91-'96 but '97-current we have done more.


Idiot. "Oh, you've been the better team, but it doesn't matter, you didn't win any titles". Then following a season when you perform better...

"OMG DOLFINS FANS U R TEH SUCK"

you're a grade A moron.

Grade A would be the bst type, right?:lol: go back and re-read all my posts sssssllllllllooooowwwwlllllyyyyy so you can understand.

EBMisfit
07-17-2006, 01:14 PM
Since you two seem to have a hard time following the conversation, let me recap:

And yet, the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years....My point here is not that the Dolphins are automatically going to continue to be better the Jests and/or Jills, just that before Jest or Jills fans gloat (as nyjunc did) over how "bad" or overrated the Dolphins have been, they should remember that the Jills and the Jests have been comically worse.

Most of that is ancient history and how many of those better years led to Championships?
Funny how everything that Jills, Jests, and, to a lesser extent, Patsy fans don't like gets relegated to "ancient history".Again, we're both talking about the past, with nothing being said about how it might affect the upcoming season(s).

How is 1996 relevant to 2006? how is 1984 or 1972 or 73 relevant to 2006?Strawman #1: Again, my point was that Dolphins have been better than the Jests and never implied that this meant that they would continue to be so.

the facts are Miami has not been close to an AFC Title Game since 1994Strawman #2: I never said they were, only that "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years".

we have had a better recent history.For all of what? Five or so years at the most? Evidently, that "recent history" doesn't extend any further back than '97.

your better history is a LONG time ago.So it appears we were talking about past accomplishments, and not predictions of the future (more on this later).

So you think 1973 is relevant to today?Strawman #3: No, I think 1973 (or at least the years following) is relevant to what was under discussion, namely, "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...."

You got me there, you guys are great- I mean you did have another "winning season" so that just adds to the legacy of the Miami Dolphins.
Since you've obviously been unable to figure this out on your own, here's a clue: I was using a reductio ad adsurdum to show you how arbitrary your five year timeline was.

I also said I consider the 80s ancient history and I was alive alive and can remember just about all of it.Consider it as whatever you want to, it's still pertinent to the discussion at hand: "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...."

so you think what David woodley did w/ ndra Franklin, Nat Moore, jimmy Cefalo, etc... is relevant to what Daunte and Ronnie Brown and co. will do?Strawman #4, which is nothing more than a repititious paraphrase of Strawman #1.

If we are looking at 15 years then you were better '91-'96 but '97-current we have done more.Are you sure you want to throw '97 into those years in which the Jests were better, since that would give the Dolphins 5 playoff seasons to the Jests 4? As for the playoff seasons since '98, the only difference is a Conference Championship for the Jests vs. a divisional playoff game for the Dolphins, which is nothing compared to how the teams' respective records thoroughly favored the Dolphins from '92-'97. If one looks at 91-current as a whole, there's no contest who was the better team.

The further you get away from any event, the less importance it has on current events.If the topic was "the importance of past records on current events", your comment might have some relevance. Instead, the topic was "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...", although I later mentioned that "the farthest back you could push [the period in which the Jests were better] is 1992" and nyjunc made several references to '97-current.

Kinzua
07-17-2006, 01:47 PM
If the topic was "the importance of past records on current events", your comment might have some relevance. Instead, the topic was "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...", although I later mentioned that "the farthest back you could push [the period in which the Jests were better] is 1992" and nyjunc made several references to '97-current.

Sorry, but that was NOT the topic. You claimed there was "no shred of logic" to picking 5 or 10 years (as compared to 33 or 34 years ago), and I showed there was definitely logic in picking a shorter, nearer time frame -- the game of football has changed radically since 1975.

What you can't stand is that Miami's real glory days ended 20 years ago, and that Buffalo or New England have pretty much dominated the AFCE since then -- and don't even try deny it with your whining about regular season records and playoff appearances. Between them, Buffalo and New England have gone to 9 -- count 'em, 9! -- Super Bowls in the last 20 years while Miami hasn't been there even once since 1985.

You can also take a shorter time span. Take five years. Oh, yeah, NE has won 3 Super Bowls in the last 5 years. Take last year. Oh, yeah, NE won the division even if it didn't make the Super Bowl.

Once again: stop making a jackazz of yourself by being stubbornly unreasonable. Miami hasn't been the best team in the AFCE for a long time.

EBMisfit
07-17-2006, 02:13 PM
Sorry, but that was NOT the topic.I don't know what those voices in your head told you, but last time I checked, this was the topic (I even went traced a direct line to this quote in my previous post):
And yet, the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years....
You claimed there was "no shred of logic" to picking 5 or 10 years (as compared to 33 or 34 years ago) Yep, and in discussing whether "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...", there isn't.

What you can't stand is that Miami's real glory days ended 20 years ago, and that Buffalo Buffalo dominated the AFC East? When was this again? In case you hadn't notice, even in the '90's, the Dolphins WERE STILL REGULARLY GOING TO THE PLAYOFFS.

New England have pretty much dominated the AFCE since thenFine, I'll admit that NE has dominated the AFCE. But it's been for what? All of 5 years? Maybe 10? How many years have the Patsies been a good team compared to the number of years that the Dolphins have been a good team?

Buffalo and New England have gone to 9 -- count 'em, 9! -- Super Bowls in the last 20 years while Miami hasn't been there even once since 1985.And Barfalo's lost all 4 of theirs and NE two.
Miami hasn't been the best team in the AFCE for a long time.Another strawman, as I never said they were. You take the overall history of each the four teams since the merger, though, and the only one who comes even close is the Patsies. And except for their '85 appearance in the SB (ooh, ooh, ooh, it was a blowout, which seems to mean something to the peanut gallery around here), all they have to show for the playoffs before 1996 is 5 one-and-outs.

nyjunc
07-18-2006, 05:49 AM
My point here is not that the Dolphins are automatically going to continue to be better the Jests and/or Jills, just that before Jest or Jills fans gloat (as nyjunc did) over how "bad" or overrated the Dolphins have been, they should remember that the Jills and the Jests have been comically worse.


Not in recent, relevant history. Last I checked it's been 5 years since you guys made the playoffs.


Again, we're both talking about the past, with nothing being said about how it might affect the upcoming season(s).


Why are you quoting and responding to yourself?


Strawman #1: Again, my point was that Dolphins have been better than the Jests and never implied that this meant that they would continue to be so.


Complete histories? No question you guys have been better than us, Miami has ben one of the better franchsies in the NFL but you haven't made the postseason since 2001 and each time you've made it in the past decade you've been humiliated out of the playoffs.



For all of what? Five or so years at the most? Evidently, that "recent history" doesn't extend any further back than '97.


I would say so, I'm not sure recent history even goes back to '97 but regardless we've been better.


Since you've obviously been unable to figure this out on your own, here's a clue: I was using a reductio ad adsurdum to show you how arbitrary your five year timeline was.


It only matters what you say(by the way didn't I say 10?), it only matters if we include 33 & 34 years ago when you won SB's.




Consider it as whatever you want to, it's still pertinent to the discussion at hand: "the Dolphins have still been better than the Jests for most of those years...."


Not in the more relevant RECENT history.


Are you sure you want to throw '97 into those years in which the Jests were better, since that would give the Dolphins 5 playoff seasons to the Jests 4? As for the playoff seasons since '98, the only difference is a Conference Championship for the Jests vs. a divisional playoff game for the Dolphins

I'll throw in '97 and you can have 1 extra postseason but we made a conf title game, we won 2 divisions to just 1 for you, we were close to 2 other conf title games while every time you made the div rd you were humiliated and never in those games oh and we dominated you head to head.


Another strawman, as I never said they were. You take the overall history of each the four teams since the merger, though, and the only one who comes even close is the Patsies. And except for their '85 appearance in the SB (ooh, ooh, ooh, it was a blowout, which seems to mean something to the peanut gallery around here), all they have to show for the playoffs before 1996 is 5 one-and-outs.

They have as many SB appearances as Miami and 1 MORE Championship. NE has moved past the dolphins as the marquee team in the divison- oh wait you have more winning seasons than them so you must be better overall:lol: Or is it you have a better Mon Night Football win %?(NOTE- a poster actually gave me that reason as to why the dolphins are one of the top 2-3 franchises in the NFL:sidelol: )

timbalu
07-18-2006, 07:53 AM
What you can't stand is that Miami's real glory days ended 20 years ago, and that Buffalo or New England have pretty much dominated the AFCE since then -- and don't even try deny it with your whining about regular season records and playoff appearances. Between them, Buffalo and New England have gone to 9 -- count 'em, 9! -- Super Bowls in the last 20 years while Miami hasn't been there even once since 1985.
Sooooooo-ie , you are one dumb smear of gnat sh1t. SUCKALO hasn't dominated anything or anyone. Yeah, you got lucky enough to be in 4 consecutive Super Bowls only to end up as the bridesmaid. Contrary to your warped perception, that does not define dominating anyone. Dominating would be beating a team 20 consecutive times. Dominating would be winning 15 of 20 games played in the heat of Miami in September and October (sound familiar ? You're about to get a reminder on September 17th) Dominating is not having an 11-10 record against Miami when playing in the snow of SUCKALO in November and December. As far as championships go SUCKALO has ZERO-- count 'em-Z-E-R-O !! By the way, just saw Taky-o on ESPN and according to him SUCKALO hasn't been "suh-sess-fuh" since Marv Levy retired but now that he's returned to a non-coaching position SUCKALO will be "suh-sess-fuh" again. I was laughing so hard I nearly swallowed my tongue . Matter of fact, you do same thing to me! :sidelol:

EBMisfit
07-18-2006, 10:48 AM
Not in recent, relevant history. Last I checked it's been 5 years since you guys made the playoffs.And I'm still waiting for you to show why 5 years is more relevant than any other arbitrarily chosen number.

Why are you quoting and responding to yourself?Why do you have such a hard time at reading comprehension? I explained why I was doing so in the first sentence of the post.

Complete histories? No question you guys have been better than us, Miami has ben one of the better franchsies in the NFL but you haven't made the postseason since 2001 and each time you've made it in the past decade you've been humiliated out of the playoffs.And the Patsies were humiliated out of SB XX and they lost SB XXI by two TDs. So maybe we shouldn't count those either in their favor? And you still haven't shown me that special stat book of yours that show that "humiliating" playoff losses count any more or less than any other playoff loss.

I would say so, I'm not sure recent history even goes back to '97 but regardless we've been better.Again, with the recent history. Are you ever going to get around to showing that 5 years are more relevant to the discussion of who's been better (regardless of who is better now) than 1 year, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years?

It only matters what you say(by the way didn't I say 10?), it only matters if we include 33 & 34 years ago when you won SB's.It matters not because I say it, but because you've been unable to show otherwise.

Not in the more relevant RECENT history.Again, what objective standard do/did you use to decide where RECENT history begins?

They have as many SB appearances as Miami and 1 MORE Championship.But they were humiliated in one of those SB appearances and close to having that happen in another. Or does that only count if it's Miami?

NE has moved past the dolphins as the marquee team in the divison- oh wait you have more winning seasons than them so you must be better overallFirst, the original discussion was about the 'Phins and the Jests, so even if it is true, it doesn't help your side anyway. Second, if having more winning seasons, playoff appearances, and AFC East championships doesn't count for anything in the 'Phins favor against the Patsies, then getting to the Conference Championship game and having more AFC East Championships (yet fewer winning seasons) shouldn't count for anything in the Jests favor against the 'Phins. Either Championships count for everything and anything else counts for nothing in both cases or it does so in neither case. Let me know when you can resolve this inconsistency.

Or is it you have a better Mon Night Football win %?(NOTE- a poster actually gave me that reason as to why the dolphins are one of the top 2-3 franchises in the NFL:sidelol: )Since that poster wasn't me, this is nothing but another strawman.

Kinzua
07-18-2006, 12:35 PM
First, the original discussion was about the 'Phins and the Jests, so even if it is true, it doesn't help your side anyway.

No, the original discussion was about a FinFan who was tired of the Fins spending the last 20+ years being Super Bowl pretenders -- as they are again this year. :lol:

timbalu
07-18-2006, 01:09 PM
No, the original discussion was about a FinFan who was tired of the Fins spending the last 20+ years being Super Bowl pretenders -- as they are again this year. :lol:

Sooooo-ie, Either you've won the big game, or two as the Fins did, or you can be a Super Bowl pretender and pretend NEVER winning one is better than winning one.. or, better yet TWO. Looks like you're spending the better part of your day with your hindquarters planted in that double-wide chair in front of that pc . Now, sitting there all day is not going to do much for the condition of that John Deere derriere .Time for you to get out there and tend to your worm farm, or pluck those chickens, call them hogs, goose them thar geese . If you're lucky, you might just find a bang in that barn . :rolleyes2

EBMisfit
07-18-2006, 01:37 PM
No, the original discussion was about a FinFan who was tired of the Fins spending the last 20+ years being Super Bowl pretenders -- as they are again this year. :lol:That would still be a step up for the Jills and the Jests, who can only pretend to be real NFL teams. It's funny how their fans keep bringing up how long it's been since the 'Phins have won a SB when it's been even longer for the Jests... and never for the Jills.

Kinzua
07-18-2006, 01:55 PM
Sooooo-ie, Either you've won the big game, or two as the Fins did, or you can be a Super Bowl pretender and pretend NEVER winning one is better than winning one.. or, better yet TWO. Looks like you're spending the better part of your day with your hindquarters planted in that double-wide chair in front of that pc . Now, sitting there all day is not going to do much for the condition of that John Deere derriere .Time for you to get out there and tend to your worm farm, or pluck those chickens, call them hogs, goose them thar geese . If you're lucky, you might just find a bang in that barn . :rolleyes2

Either you've won the big game, or two as the Fins did, or you can be a Super Bowl pretender and pretend NEVER winning one is better than winning one.. or, better yet TWO.
FYI, Trailer Trash Timbits -- a "pretender" is a team that fans think is good enough but really isn't even close to earning a spot. That's a perfect description of the Carp since 1985. :sidelol:


Looks like you're spending the better part of your day with your hindquarters planted in that double-wide chair in front of that pc .
And what are you doing, Trailer Trash Timbits? Water skiing??? :sidelol: :sidelol:


Now, sitting there all day is not going to do much for the condition of that John Deere derriere .Time for you to get out there and tend to your worm farm, or pluck those chickens, call them hogs, goose them thar geese . If you're lucky, you might just find a bang in that barn ..

WOW. :eek: You know so much about farming, Trailer Trash Timbits!!! Where did you learn all that stuff? Hanging out with your boyfriends at the trailer park owner's place, swigging beer, and watching his barnyard animals fornicate? It must have been the high point of your education! :sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:

timbalu
07-18-2006, 02:32 PM
FYI, Trailer Trash Timbits -- a "pretender" is a team that fans think is good enough but really isn't even close to earning a spot. That's a perfect description of the Carp since 1985. :sidelol:

Soooooo-ie so you'd have to admit this is a perfect description of good ol' SUCK-SUCK SUCKALO since all the way back to 1961: THE PRETENDERS !!
or NEVER-NEVER LAND, or managed to win 1/3 of the games against the FINS
WOW. :eek: You know so much about farming, Trailer Trash Timbits!!! Where did you learn all that stuff? Hanging out with your boyfriends at the trailer park owner's place, swigging beer, and watching his barnyard animals fornicate? It must have been the high point of your education! :sidelol: :sidelol: :sidelol:

No Soooooooo-ie you're the one who takes great pride in being a maggot farmer. Thought you'd be familiar with the referrence to John Deere, considering you probably need a "custom" seat with heavy-duty shock absorbers on your John Deere. Again, there are no trailers or trailer parks within 20 miles of my home. And, since you have extensive knowledge of trailers and farm animals' sexual habits leads me to believe you've had some personal experience of doing the horizontal hula with a few horsies, billy goats, and perhaps the occasional donkey !! Maybe a BUFFALO !!!! What do you say when your goat asks you if you spit or swallow ?? :lol:

Kinzua
07-18-2006, 02:45 PM
No Soooooooo-ie you're the one who takes great pride in being a maggot farmer. Thought you'd be familiar with the referrence to John Deere, considering you probably need a "custom" seat with heavy-duty shock absorbers on your John Deere. Again, there are no trailers or trailer parks within 20 miles of my home. And, since you have extensive knowledge of trailers and farm animals' sexual habits leads me to believe you've had some personal experience of doing the horizontal hula with a few horsies, billy goats, and perhaps the occasional donkey !! Maybe a BUFFALO !!!! What do you say when your goat asks you if you spit or swallow ?? :lol:

Are you typing while you water ski, Trailer Trash Timbits?

EBMisfit
07-18-2006, 03:30 PM
a "pretender" is a team that fans think is good enough but really isn't even close to earning a spot. And the Jills are a team that everyone knows is nowhere good enough and seem destined to stay that way. I'd rather see the 'Phins fall short of high expectations than spectactularly succeed at being losers like the Jills.

nyjunc
07-19-2006, 08:18 AM
And the Patsies were humiliated out of SB XX and they lost SB XXI by two TDs. So maybe we shouldn't count those either in their favor? And you still haven't shown me that special stat book of yours that show that "humiliating" playoff losses count any more or less than any other playoff loss.


You were humiliated in 2 of your 3 SB losses, NE ws humiliated by an all-time great team in 1 of their losses. Oh and they BEAT Miami AT Miami in the AFC Title Game. You don't want to get into an argument over playoff and SB humiliations.


Again, with the recent history. Are you ever going to get around to showing that 5 years are more relevant to the discussion of who's been better (regardless of who is better now) than 1 year, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years?


Why do you have such a problem w/ this? Any normal person would consider recent history on the 5-10 year range.


But they were humiliated in one of those SB appearances and close to having that happen in another. Or does that only count if it's Miami?


OK so they were. Let's recap:

NE's 5 SBs:

XX: Humiliated by Chicago(of course they beat Miami AT Miami in the AFC Title game to get to the SB)
XXXI: Lost close game to GB
XXXVI: won SB
XXXVII: Won SB
XXXVIII: won SB

Miami's 5 SBs:

SB VI: Humiliatd by Dallas
SB VII: Won SB
SB VIII: Won SB
SB XVII: Lost close game to Wash
SB XIX: Humiliated by SF

Lets' tally it up:

NE has 3 SB titles to 2 for Miami
NE was humiliated in 1 SB compared to 2 for Miami

which is better?


First, the original discussion was about the 'Phins and the Jests, so even if it is true, it doesn't help your side anyway. Second, if having more winning seasons, playoff appearances, and AFC East championships doesn't count for anything in the 'Phins favor against the Patsies, then getting to the Conference Championship game and having more AFC East Championships (yet fewer winning seasons) shouldn't count for anything in the Jests favor against the 'Phins. Either Championships count for everything and anything else counts for nothing in both cases or it does so in neither case. Let me know when you can resolve this inconsistency.


In the overall scheme they count which is why you have a better overall history, w/ NE it would count more if you were tied w/ them for titles or had more SB appearances but since you do not then they win. W/ the Jets and Phins neither has been to or won a SB in a long time so we need other factors, those factots helped you to be considered better pre-'97 or '98 and helpe us to be considered better from '97 or '98-present.



Since that poster wasn't me, this is nothing but another strawman.

I know but you have to admit that's hysterical.

EBMisfit
07-19-2006, 10:08 AM
You were humiliated in 2 of your 3 SB lossesStrange how this suddenly matters when it didn't before I brought up your inconsistency.

Oh and they BEAT Miami AT Miami in the AFC Title Game.And what does this have to do with the price of wheat in Nebraska? We were discussing the games themselves, not how they got there. I could just as easily point out that NE was in the playoffs only one year that Miami made it to the SB and then they were first round victims. So by your standard where Conference Championships games are better than lower round playoff games, Miami is more successful in that category.

You don't want to get into an argument over playoff and SB humiliations.No, because the whole "humiliations" stat is merely a figment of your imagination and I don't care whether a team was beaten by one point or a hundred. A loss by any other name is still a loss... and strangely, according to official NFL stats, your "humiliating" losses count the same as regular losses. I was just pointing out how you conveniently emphasize factors that support your argument and ignore those that don't. Another example: "NE ws [sic] humiliated by an all-time great team in 1 of their losses". I have to assume you're talking about the Bears there, but they could hardly be considered an all-time greater team than SF (nothing like throwing your own standards back in your face, as SF went on to win 4 SBs in a 9 year period... oh, but I forgot that those doesn't count because they're not within your special "5 year recent history" time frame).

Why do you have such a problem w/ this? Any normal person would consider recent history on the 5-10 year range.My problem isn't so much with your definition (although I still find it somewhat arbitrary) of "recent history" as to its relevance, which you have yet to show.

In the overall scheme they count which is why you have a better overall history, w/ NE it would count more if you were tied w/ them for titles or had more SB appearances but since you do not then they win. W/ the Jets and Phins neither has been to or won a SB in a long time so we need other factors, those factots helped you to be considered better pre-'97 or '98 and helpe us to be considered better from '97 or '98-present.Then I suppose it's just a matter of subjective tastes. Personally, I think Dolphin fans every right to be as proud of their team's playoff/winning season percentage (especially when compared to that of NE's or any other AFC East team) as NE does of their SB appearances/wins, since it's not like there's an overwhelming gap between them and Miami.

I know but you have to admit that's hysterical.Whatever. I just don't see what merit there is in bringing it up in a debate against me. I'm sure I could find plenty of equally inane quotes by Jests fans if I wanted to.

fin1
07-19-2006, 12:10 PM
That's exactly the YAHOO poster's point. The Fishies win lots of games during the season, and get lots of hype about being Super Bowl "contenders", but the fact is that they haven't been to a Super Bowl in 21 years, Conference Finals in 14 years, or even to the playoffs in 5 years. It's happening again this year. Every media maven in the business has Miami at least a Super Bowl long-shot.

Better to be hyped than expected to lose, Ape.

fin1
07-19-2006, 12:13 PM
You were humiliated in 2 of your 3 SB losses, NE ws humiliated by an all-time great team in 1 of their losses. Oh and they BEAT Miami AT Miami in the AFC Title Game. You don't want to get into an argument over playoff and SB humiliations.



You mean that all time great team that was spanked on Monday Night Football? Didn't look so great to me.

Kinzua
07-19-2006, 01:20 PM
You were humiliated in 2 of your 3 SB losses, NE ws humiliated by an all-time great team in 1 of their losses. Oh and they BEAT Miami AT Miami in the AFC Title Game. You don't want to get into an argument over playoff and SB humiliations.



You mean that all time great team that was spanked on Monday Night Football? Didn't look so great to me.

How about using the quote feature so that people can figure out what you're talking about??? Duh ...

Kinzua
07-19-2006, 01:29 PM
Better to be hyped than expected to lose, Ape.

That's not necessarily so.

A team that is expected to go to the Super Bowl and only makes the playoffs with a wild card and then goes one and out in the playoffs is a bigger disappointment than a team that was expected to lose more games than it won but goes 9-7 and just missed the playoffs.

As a Fins fan, were you happy about the Fins going 9-7 in 2005 even if they didn't make the playoffs?

How do you think Indy fans feel with their team bowing out early again?

As a Bills fan, if the Bills are still in the playoff hunt come November, I'll be a happy camper whether they make it or not. If the Fins have the same w/l record as the Bills in November, there are going to be a lot of po'd Miami fans because they predicted a 12 or 13 win season.

EBMisfit
07-19-2006, 01:49 PM
A team that is expected to go to the Super Bowl and only makes the playoffs with a wild card and then goes one and out in the playoffs is a bigger disappointment than a team that was expected to lose more games than it won but goes 9-7 and just missed the playoffs.What meds are you taking again? You mean you're happy that Barfalo consistently has a worse record than the 'Phins?:crazy:

As a Fins fan, were you happy about the Fins going 9-7 in 2005 even if they didn't make the playoffs?Better than I felt when they weren't picked to do anything the year before and went 4-12.

How do you think Indy fans feel with their team bowing out early again?I don't know and I don't care. I only know and care about how I feel.

As a Bills fan, if the Bills are still in the playoff hunt come November, I'll be a happy camper whether they make it or not. Call it a hunch, but they're more likely to be in the first pick in next year's draft hunt.

If the Fins have the same w/l record as the Bills in NovemberThere's a huge "if" about the size of the universe.

there are going to be a lot of po'd Miami fans because they predicted a 12 or 13 win season.Then maybe they should realize they shouldn't go by predictions.

EBMisfit
07-19-2006, 01:51 PM
How about using the quote feature so that people can figure out what you're talking about??? Duh ...Oddly enough, I didn't have any trouble figuring out what he was talking about. So maybe the problem is with you and not him, hmm?