-81- McMichael
Active Roster
Re: Re: Hmmm... but that's just it.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. A good critical point. I support it 100%.
However, your logic IS flawed reg. the Raider games (and I'm pointing this out to help - not to argue - just consider the possibilities, first):
You cannot, cannot, cannot go back in hindsight and say "oh, well, but that game didn't "end up" having any significance). That's absurd. Of course it didn't matter... because we WON it!
The victory against the Raiders made us either the #1 or #2 seed going into the playoffs, at that time. Moreover, consider that a LOSS to the Raiders (another AFC opponent that was ALSO vying for a playoff spot - possibly a VERY limited wildcard - because they had plenty of competition from KC and Denver at the time for the AFC West crown)... whew!... anywayz, a loss would have put us in a really BAD situation... at 8-6. Consider that.
So the game DID matter, AT THE TIME... BIG TIME. In a sense, it was exactly like a playoff game... much as the games against Minn. and NE were, too. Yes, I am contending that ALL THREE games should be viewed as "playoff" type games - less so the Minn. game, though, because it was an NFC opponent.
And what does the fact that winning the playoff match with the Raiders and getting us "to the AFC Championship for the first time in 10 years" have to do with anything? It could be 100 years since you last made the AFC Championship game... who cares? For that matter, some teams have never even gotten to the Conf. Championship. So what? Does a long absense make a team's desire/goal of reaching the Championship any more poignant? Why?
If you can prove that then you pick the #'s and I'll buy us a LOTTO ticket for this week's Florida Lotto (75 million!).
Also, please don't belittle the Raiders of 2002, much less the victory over them. They were on a FIVE GAME winning streak and that loss to us was their ONLY LOSS in... COUNT 'EM... 10 games... before they finally lost to Tampa (a team similar to our own, defensively) in the SB.
So yes... (as you said)...
"The Dolphins came off 2 straight wins, were 9-5, #1 in the AFC, and completely choked down the straetch... you guys win (EITHER ONE OF) those last 2 games and you end up in the superbowl most likely."
A much more critical and interesting debate is WHY did we lose those two games and HOW has the team addressed those problems so far in 2003.
I'd let go of insisting that the Raider playoff loss... TWO YEARS AGO... has ANY real significance (different players, star RB now, MUUUUCH better OC, etc). And I, at least, would consider the POSSIBILITY that the victory against the Raiders last year was, at the very least, of "some" import. I mean, really, just go ask them.
I'm done with this. Got to get some work done.
But, seriously, look for arguments/points that have SOME LEGS to support themselves with. Good points support themselves.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. A good critical point. I support it 100%.
However, your logic IS flawed reg. the Raider games (and I'm pointing this out to help - not to argue - just consider the possibilities, first):
You cannot, cannot, cannot go back in hindsight and say "oh, well, but that game didn't "end up" having any significance). That's absurd. Of course it didn't matter... because we WON it!
The victory against the Raiders made us either the #1 or #2 seed going into the playoffs, at that time. Moreover, consider that a LOSS to the Raiders (another AFC opponent that was ALSO vying for a playoff spot - possibly a VERY limited wildcard - because they had plenty of competition from KC and Denver at the time for the AFC West crown)... whew!... anywayz, a loss would have put us in a really BAD situation... at 8-6. Consider that.
So the game DID matter, AT THE TIME... BIG TIME. In a sense, it was exactly like a playoff game... much as the games against Minn. and NE were, too. Yes, I am contending that ALL THREE games should be viewed as "playoff" type games - less so the Minn. game, though, because it was an NFC opponent.
And what does the fact that winning the playoff match with the Raiders and getting us "to the AFC Championship for the first time in 10 years" have to do with anything? It could be 100 years since you last made the AFC Championship game... who cares? For that matter, some teams have never even gotten to the Conf. Championship. So what? Does a long absense make a team's desire/goal of reaching the Championship any more poignant? Why?
If you can prove that then you pick the #'s and I'll buy us a LOTTO ticket for this week's Florida Lotto (75 million!).
Also, please don't belittle the Raiders of 2002, much less the victory over them. They were on a FIVE GAME winning streak and that loss to us was their ONLY LOSS in... COUNT 'EM... 10 games... before they finally lost to Tampa (a team similar to our own, defensively) in the SB.
So yes... (as you said)...
"The Dolphins came off 2 straight wins, were 9-5, #1 in the AFC, and completely choked down the straetch... you guys win (EITHER ONE OF) those last 2 games and you end up in the superbowl most likely."
A much more critical and interesting debate is WHY did we lose those two games and HOW has the team addressed those problems so far in 2003.
I'd let go of insisting that the Raider playoff loss... TWO YEARS AGO... has ANY real significance (different players, star RB now, MUUUUCH better OC, etc). And I, at least, would consider the POSSIBILITY that the victory against the Raiders last year was, at the very least, of "some" import. I mean, really, just go ask them.
I'm done with this. Got to get some work done.
But, seriously, look for arguments/points that have SOME LEGS to support themselves with. Good points support themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
:jk: circle.
