Jump to content

Would you rather your team have a 21st century like GB/Indy or TB?


ClutchDJ

Recommended Posts

I would take one SB win with moderate or better success for most of the seasons than mostly sucking and 2 or mayyybe even 3 (although 3 definitely may change up my thinking) SB's in one year wonders.  It's easy to say in hindsight you'd take those 2 or 3, but at least if you are in the mix you always have a chance. 

 

Also, you have to actually live through the terrible seasons.  As a Cardinals fan (and others) that used to be really all we know before we got a suckle of the playoff teet relatively recently (and have also sunk to the bottom a few times in between), the season is far more fun when your team is at least competitive and in it every season.  At this point, one SB would be great for our franchise. 

 

At least with others, it's like their 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, so it's cool and all, but yeah, 1 + sustained success is definitely a better trade off as a Cardinals fan.  Some fans just arn't used to terrible seasons year after year, so they have no idea what it's really like and probably brush that part off to get the SB wins (or if they do, it was decades ago).  You know what teams I am talking about.

 

 

Edited by Zalixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2021 at 3:46 PM, DirtyDez said:

I’d rather the season end in heartbreak than irrelevance. 

As a "seasoned" Packers fan I was around when we were truly irrelevant from 1968 - 1991.  Even tho we 'only' won 2 SBs these past 29 years have been a hell of lot more fun than the Dark Ages after Lombardi.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

Tampa. My team was in the playoffs all but one year from 05-13 and I would have taken a ring over that easily. You watch for the chance to win a title 

You also watch to have fun. You're saying one SB and many many more seasons of sucking is more fun than being a contender and having a great team every year? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean it has to be Tampa Bay right? 2 Super Bowl victories and not really any pain to go with it. Whereas Green Bay has just the one victory and frequent, heartbreaking pain across this era.

Of course if the question back in 2000 had been would you rather:

1. Replace your current HoF quarterback with another HoF QB and have a team which post winning records every year and regularly competes in the playoffs/conference championships/Super Bowl?

2. Have a team that is generally pretty bad but once a decade puts together a great roster to compete?

The answer is obviously A, but having had it all play out who cares about competing each year? Sports is ultimately all about winning.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

I mean it has to be Tampa Bay right? 2 Super Bowl victories and not really any pain to go with it. Whereas Green Bay has just the one victory and frequent, heartbreaking pain across this era.

Of course if the question back in 2000 had been would you rather:

1. Replace your current HoF quarterback with another HoF QB and have a team which post winning records every year and regularly competes in the playoffs/conference championships/Super Bowl?

2. Have a team that is generally pretty bad but once a decade puts together a great roster to compete?

The answer is obviously A, but having had it all play out who cares about competing each year? Sports is ultimately all about winning.

Missing the playoffs and going 3-13 every year may not be heartbreaking, but I’d define it as painful for a fanbase. Bucs heartbreak was in 2010 and those other years where they collapsed before missing the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lancerman said:

Tampa. My team was in the playoffs all but one year from 05-13 and I would have taken a ring over that easily. You watch for the chance to win a title 

This is a little contradictory, because the Bucs didn't have a chance to win a title 95% of the time frame given, while the other teams did.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lancerman said:

Tampa. My team was in the playoffs all but one year from 05-13 and I would have taken a ring over that easily. You watch for the chance to win a title 

If you're watching for a chance to win a title, wouldn't you take the Pats then? As a Pats fan you knew they were good enough to potentially win it each year, so you watched them. As a TB fan for most of this century it was probably a foregone conclusion before most seasons started that a Super Bowl or even playoffs was unlikely.

Personally, I would take Green Bay here. Honestly I think there's some recency bias here that's causing people to pick TB. I feel like if it was TB that won in 2010 and GB in 2020 then a lot more people would be picking the Packers.

Edited by AJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GB/Indy, I think. It's more exciting to have a team that stubbornly continues to make the playoffs almost every year no matter how many times they get smacked down (and deservedly so, in the case of Green Bay 😜).

But the Bucs aren't very far behind them, realistically; they were very good from 2000-2008 and again in 2010, so there is some recency bias involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GB/Indy. I'd rather know that my team has a chance every year and get the 1 ring then to consistently suck every year. These last 3 as a Falcons fan have somewhat sucked because the team sucked. I'd rather go through 10 more 28-3s than another losing season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...