For years the Giants have been better than us, made much better personnel moves, and the Jets have deserved criticism. Being objective doesn't make him a Giants fan. Their team is clearly better than ours.
No they haven't, they were better last year and 2005 and 2000 in this decade(2000 we were close they just played in a pathetic conf, they wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the AFC). In '01, '02, '03, '04 and '06 we were better. Objective? There is nothing objective about him.
The problem is I am objective and folks like you aren't but you perceive what I write instead of actually reading what I write like w/ all the Favre topics.
Nobody is objective about things they believe in. I unlike others don't claim to be objective. Living life creates bias no matter how some try and deny it.
They've appeared in two Super Bowls this decade, winning one of them. What exactly have we done this decade that's warranted us being "better than them"?
Up until last year we had been better. yeah they made the SB in 2000 but that was b/c the NFC was pathetically weak. They wouldn't have made the postseason in the AFC and they were humiliated in the SB. Again we were better in '01, '02, '03, '04 & '06. Thye have been better in '00(I'm not convinced of that b/c of the weakness of the NFC) '05 and '07. 5 is better than 3, right? The SB wim trumps the extra 2 years BUT prior to them winning the SB we were having a better decade.
When we've appeared in a Super Bowl twice in an eight year span, instead of once in 40 years, then you can say we're better. We've made the playoffs a couple of times this decade but really haven't done much damage except for 1 or 2 years.
i usually try to stay out of the arguments you get in because they are usually a dead end, but i have noticed lately that a lot of your arguments are based on you using hypothetical situations as fact. in your favre arguments you always say with certainty that we would have won x amount of games with chad. when there is no possible way for you to know that for sure. same with this argument you hypothetically put us in the nfc and then say with certainty that we would have made the superbowl. when there is no way you can know what would have happened if that was the case. they are weak arguments.
I use logic, If Chad is 1 game behind us w/ half the talent then I think we'd be at least as good as we are now w/ him. That Chad argument was from a month ago anywya, Favre has been playing good football for us and I haven't complianed at all since the KC game. The NFC was incredibly weak up until about 2 years ago. I think we would have been good enough to make the SB, I don't think there's any chance the Giants even make the playoffs in '00 or '02 if they played in the AFC.
You don't back up anything, you are a hit and run poster. You hide behind other posters, you just tell me I am wrong and ther's nothing else.
I hate to get this started again but I will anyway. What you completely leave out of this argument is coaching. I personally think ours sucks and Miami's is probably better. So you can't just say "CHAD" is one game behind because he isn't. Miami is and a lot of them comes from coaching. Good coaching can make a bad team win and bad coaching can make a good team lose. I would say three of our losses have come from bad coaching. NE, Oakland and Denver and I'll argue that point with anyone.
Then where did our 8 wins come from? And why is it that "Chad" and nobody else was 1-7 last year, according to you guys on this board?
im not gonna go into any chad stuff as thats played out and just annoying at this point. what you just said is more logical. you think we may have made the superbowl in the nfc one of those years. you are right the chance of us making the superbowl would have been greater if we played in the nfc at that time. it is still far from certain and to represent it like it would have happened is not a good argument.
