"Quality of Seasons" Ratio

[Statman]

Our data pool consists of all team's seasons starting with the 1970 season, the first "merged" season where the AFL became the AFC of the NFL. I typically refer to this period as the "modern" age of NFL football because we have 26 to 32 teams instead of half and there is cross conference games in the regular season.

We group each team's seasons into three categories depending on their record. For seasons where the team won 60% to 100% of the games we label that a "good" season. 40% to 59% is an "average" season, 39% or less is a "poor" season.

In a 16 game season a good season would be any record with double digit wins. An average season would be 9-7 down to 7-9, a poor season would be double digit losses.

The totals for each team's categories are totaled and presented as a percentage ratio.

For example:

45-15-40 would mean there were 45% good seasons, 15% average seasons and 40% poor seasons.

The purpose of this excercise to find which teams were consistently good....or poor....or even average. Also, which teams were not.

An historically successful team would not be successful all the time, that is impossible with the parity checks and balances the NFL has employed such as the draft, free agency, salary cap, ect..... Instead, a highly successful team would have the highest percentage at "good" seasons, the second highest at "average" and the lowest at "poor".

Of course poor teams would be the opposite, average teams would be loaded in the middle of the ratio.

These are the results:

Team Quality Ratio
Cowboys 56-27-18
49ers 56-16-29
Steelers 53-36-11
Dolphins 49-40-11
Patriots 49-24-27
Broncos 47-38-16
Ravens 47-32-21
Eagles 47-24-29
Colts 44-20-36
Redskins 42-29-29
Raiders 40-33-27
Rams 40-24-36
Vikings 38-44-18
Packers 38-33-29
Titans 33-31-36
Bears 31-36-33
Giants 31-33-36
Bills 29-31-40
Chiefs 27-40-33
Bengals 27-38-36
Panthers 25-55-20
Jaguars 25-30-45
Browns 24-31-45
Seahawks 23-51-26
Chargers 22-44-33
Saints 22-42-36
Falcons 22-33-44
Jets 20-42-38
Bucs 18-23-59
Lions 16-42-42
Cardinals 16-33-51
Texans 15-38-46

The Dallas Cowboys lead the NFL in quality seasons. They are tied for 2nd when you subtract the poor seasons from the good ones. The Steelers lead by 4% in this "good-poor margin.

Although many have accused the Cowboys of being "mediocre" lately, the King of Medicore would have to go to either the Seahawks or Panthers, more than 50% of their seasons were average with the good and poor percentages almost even. Such a symmetrical ratio indicates that, not only were they mostly average, but each good season was cancelled by a bad season.

Then again, mediocre could also be equal percentages in all three categories in which case the three most mundane teams would be the Titans, Giants, and Bears.

The most pathetic would have to be the Bucs, followed by the Lions, Texans, and Cardinals.

Another interesting team would be the Rams, who were either really good or really bad, hardly ever average.

The poor seasons for the Cowboys took place mostly in the early 2000's, plus Landry's last year, Johnson's first year, and Switzer's last year. When you can count the poor seasons over 45 years on your fingers then your team was almost always competitive.

In all, the most consistently good teams over the past 45 years have been the Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, and Broncos.

 

[Dodger12]

In all, the most consistently good teams over the past 45 years have been the Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, and Broncos.

This is a fallacy. We have not been "consistently" good. We just racked up good years up to the mid 90's and have been living off that statistical reputation ever since which skews the stats. There is nothing "consistent" over the past 20 years except our recent 8 and 8 seasons and the fact we haven't been very good.

 

[Statman]

This is a fallacy. We have not been "consistently" good. We just racked up good years up to the mid 90's and have been living off that statistical reputation ever since which skews the stats. There is nothing "consistent" over the past 20 years except our recent 8 and 8 seasons and the fact we haven't been very good.

It's not a fallacy, we're simply using different time intervals. Of course the measurements would be different if we were talking about 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 1 year ago.

I simply said that "since the time of the AFL-NFL merger", the Dallas Cowboys have been one of the most consistently good teams in the NFL and the proof is right there.

I agree that is not the case if you measure over the past 20 years. Then again, do you believe that their results over the past 20 years is an indication of a trend? How did they do last season? Did they live off their reputation or did they contribute to it?

Does the quality of the players on the team now indicate they won't be very good in the coming seasons?

 

[ZeroClub]

I'm a lifelong fan, but I got (totally) fed up with the habitual, soul-crushing mediocrity of the Cowboys in 2013. The Landry wins and the Jimmy Johnson wins simply were not relevant anymore. I liked the memories, but the memories alone weren't enough to keep me interested in the current team.

So for me, the appropriate time interval would be something like 15 years.

I don't think I'm so unusual in this regard. During the so-called "Dark Ages" in Green Bay (after Lombardi and before Favre), it sucked to be a Packers fan. Raiders fans have endured soul-crushing futility in recent years. etc.

 

[Midswat]

Yeah dgaf what the team did 30 years ago. Completely useless "feel good" stats. I care about the present in a what have you done for me league. Outside of 2007, 2009, and 2014, this team has been shit.

 

[Midswat]

Underachieving down to an art.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Right. Guess by Statman standards it's better to be a Raiders or Dolphins fan than a Seahawks or Saints one.

 

[Dodger12]

I simply said that "since the time of the AFL-NFL merger", the Dallas Cowboys have been one of the most consistently good teams in the NFL and the proof is right there.

I understand what you said but I just don't agree with your characterization of "consitently good."

I agree that is not the case if you measure over the past 20 years. Then again, do you believe that their results over the past 20 years is an indication of a trend? How did they do last season? Did they live off their reputation or did they contribute to it?

The past 20 years defies the term consistent by any standard when you look at the history of the team starting in 1960. If for the past 20 years the team has been pretty bad (putrid in many cases), you can't make an argument for the team being consistently good.

 

[NoShame]

Yea this is a feel good stat. I'm with the rest of the guys, this shit doesn't matter when your team has been ass the last 15 years.

 

[Statman]

Okay, isn't there a little hypocricy going on here?

I mention a time frame of 45 years. Some of you think 10 to 15 years is more important.

Why?

Because you want to show that the more immediate past indicates the mediocrity we've all been forced to experience? Like I don't feel it justvas much, maybe more because I witnessed what a dominant team looked like? Not once or twice but three times?

Well guess what...your time frame just as ancient. What does mediocrity have to do with going 12-4 last season?

Do you really think this team us continuing down the path of mediocrity?

It's over. This team is strong with the potential to get stronger for the next 2-3 seasons, most likely far beyond that.

This team has been bad in many cases over the past 20 years? How many cases, the majority? No.

They have been putrid? Define "putrid", 5-11 sucks, I absolutely agree but how many times in Cowboy history have they lost every game, won only one or two?

Twice in 55 years. Do you know the league average for how many times a team experiencesbthat type of season?

Wins and losses happen in waves but the winning streaks for the Cowboys have been tidal waves, one a record 20 consecutive years, the losing streaks have been ripples.

The worst the Cowboys have ever been over a reasonable amount of time is average. Yes, we have higher standards and I applaud that but let's keep things in perspective.

You are the one's that see no positive in the Cowboys performance over the last half century, what team do you see as more dominant.

If you say the Patriots then that is truly comical, they absolutely sucked for almost two full decades, they needed the past 15 years just to catch up.

One more thing....its all history, 45 years ago, 25 years ago, last season, its done. In the end, history is all we have.

 

[NoShame]

Shut your hole and get us the stats from the last 15-20 years.

 

[Dodger12]

I don't even know what we're arguing here. If someone said over the coarse of 50 plus years this is our overall record and ranks "here" among other teams, I'm good with that. people can even call us the most sucessful franchise based on SB's and playoff wins and if the stats bare that out, I'm good with that too. But we can't claim we are cossistently good. It's assinine and we're living off our past accomplishments. For the past 1/3 of our team's history, we have not been consistently good. Far from it.

 

[peplaw06]

The issue is with the use of the term "consistently good." Have the Cowboys been one of the best franchises in the history of the league? Yes. Are they good year in and year out. No. If you are consistently good, you don't go 15 years without a playoff victory.

But there's nothing wrong with that. There may not be a team out there who is "consistently good." All franchises go through ups and downs. Some more downs than ups, some more ups than downs. I'd put the Cowboys in the latter obviously, but don't sugar coat it as "consistently good."

 

[Statman]

Shut your hole and get us the stats from the last 15-20 years.

First, get it yourself.

Secondly, really?

This is going to be an exercise in semantics? What are we, a bunch of freakin' lawyers?

Okay, the Cowboys are as consistent as any team can be consistent over the past 45 years.....

QUESTION:

What is the longest losing streak the Cowboys have suffered over the past 45 years? How does that compare with the rest of the NFL.

Or, if this isn't acceptable, what is the longest streak the Cowboys have had without a winning season? How does that compare with the rest of the NFL?

How many teams have won more on a consistent basis........AS CONSISTENT AS A TEAM CAN BE IN A LEAGUE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE PARITY.....



Guess what, I know the answer.

Should I lay out the stats out for everyone to see as demanded or should I let you go find out yourself if you are so inclined?

Guess again.

 

[NoShame]

TL;DR

Listen nerd, are you gonna get the stats or not?

 

[Dodger12]

This is going to be an exercise in semantics? What are we, a bunch of freakin' lawyers?

Okay, the Cowboys are as consistent as any team can be consistent over the past 45 years.....

Statman, you need to stop. This isn't a question of semantics, but a question of accuracy. I mean, how many times are you going to move the goal posts? We're all Cowboys fans believe it or not. But I won't toss out the last 20 years and try to repackage this team's failures because of one 12 and 4 season by an underachieving HC and overwhelmed GM. I'm sorry, that just won't happen.

Or, if this isn't acceptable, what is the longest streak the Cowboys have had without a winning season? How does that compare with the rest of the NFL?

You're asking a question that you already know the answer to and you're already setting your parameters. How about you tell us how many teams have not made it to a Championship game or SB since Jimmy's players left town?

How many teams have won more on a consistent basis........AS CONSISTENT AS A TEAM CAN BE IN A LEAGUE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE PARITY.....

In a time of parity, we rank with the Browns in terms of failure to go to a Championship game in the last 20 years. I've seen the stats, although I can't remember them precisely, we're in some pretty bad company with the cellar dwellers of the NFL. In a time of parity, we've been anything but. We can certainly change that if we continue to build from last season but I personally need to see it first.

Should I lay out the stats out for everyone to see as demanded or should I let you go find out yourself if you are so inclined?

Please do.

Listen, I like this place. I don't want to attack every post by new folks around here. I'd like to see more posters and have a good give and take even if we disagree. You educated me in your Demarco Murray thread when you first came on board. You proved your point and it reinforced what I believed about Murray and his contributions to the team. Kudos to you......but I won't let you repackage and re-brand the last 20 years just because you get a hard on for the HC or GM.

 

[Statman]

Ahem.....

We interrupt this blithering to bring you an important announcement.

Only three NFL teams over the past 45 years have won more games than they lost in all 5 decades!!

The 70's

The 80's

The 90's

the 2000's

and the 2010's so far.....

Two of these teams are the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

If you have won more games than you lost every single decade, then you have never had a losing decade. There has never been a decade in which you won less than the majority of games that you played.

There is only one way to describe this phenomenon.....

You have CONSISTANTLY WON THROUGHOUT THAT 45 YEAR PERIOD, EVEN BROKEN DOWN INTO THE DECADES!!!!

Oh, that reminds me......the 3rd team?

Thank you! You've been a great audience! Goodnight!

Please proceed in an orderly fashion towards the exit!!! Thank you, thank you.......no pushing, please....

 

[peplaw06]

Dude claims Dez isn't an elite receiver because he hasn't made big plays in playoffs, then claims Cowboys have been consistent winners when they've had 2 playoff victories in 20 years.

 

[Statman]

You want to change the subject now, because that's what you are really doing, fine. I mean, I stated the parameters of the data and what it was relevant to and now I got people criticizing it for details that were never included.

My statement or conclusions were restricted to those specific parameters, the regular season between 1970 and 2014. I said they won consistantly, obviously in respect to those games.

Hell, yeah, I'm totally disappointed in their dismal playoff results, especially because they had real opportunities and blew it.

That's the most important aspect of having winning seasons, you have to be able to maximize your opportunities, turn those winning seasons into participating in conference championship games and Super Bowls. The Cowboys used to do a really good job of it but this past ten years they turned into the Eagles.

The seasons from 2006 to 2009 were prime opportunities but when it came time to bring it up a notch they faded.

Again, anytime you are comparing a team's numbers to the rest of the league you can't really include playoff games because that's an extra game to win or lose that the majority of other teams don't have. Besides, playoff games are always played against the best teams in the league, eventually every playoff team will lose except one.

Now I have a question for you all:

If the Cowboys have been so awful, so terrible recently, then how in the hell where they able to capture the NFL lead in regular season winning percentage for all franchises after just this one winning season in 5 years.....because that's what they did.

The very first season in franchise history where they led all teams in all time regular season winning percentage?

The 2009 season. Five years ago. They lost it temporarily after the first half of the 2010 season. How is that possible if they have just totally sucked?

 

[yimyammer]

I mention a time frame of 45 years. Some of you think 10 to 15 years is more important.

Why?

Personally, the reason I think the last 19 years (post last super bowl win) should be isolated are because thats when jerruh has been large and in charge and the salary cap/free agency settled in. No doubt he could have overturned Jimmys decisions at any point but for the majority of Jimmys reign, jerruh was distracted trying to get the Cowboys finances in order and what a thing of beauty that turned out to be.

I'd like to see the stats for number of wins when jerruh has been most active in making football decisions, I'm pretty confident they go in opposite directions. Its comical how the further away from football decisions he is, how much better the team does.

semi-off topic but who doesn't enjoy a good jerruh bash