2019 Vikings are total FRAUDS!!!!

[Pondering Her Percy]

Weak. How about Cousins wins a single playoff game before we start claiming Cousins can do nothing to win some fans over.

Weak? Yeah those numbers seem pretty "weak" and that includes wins. But sure, let's add one more narrative to this. He's already proved plenty of them wrong already.

I hope he STARTS to prove every "hater" wrong and beats the Saints.

Pretty sure he has already started. I've already named plenty of narratives that he's put to bed already this year.

"Well" compared to what? They are 6th in scoring and 4th in turnovers. Top 10 by any measure that affects winning. Statistically they are ranked about the same as the Offense. Did the offense not play "well" this year either?

....weak. The GB and LAC game they played well. But let's talk how they played against "winning teams" since that seems to be a big thing with the offense.

-Crapped the bed week 2 vs. GB. Granted they held up in the 2nd half but put us in a HUGE hole in the 1st half giving up 21.
-Let Philly right back in the game, gave up 400 total yards, lucky enough Cousins had to save us.
-Gave up nearly 400 yards again vs. KC. Struggled against a QB that was 2 weeks into the league and gave up a 91 yard TD to a below average RB and below average running team.
-Was walked on by Seattle giving up almost 450 total yards and 37 points.
-Then played much better vs. GB the 2nd time but still gave up almost 400 total yards.

So you tell me how they've really been playing when it matters? You always want to bring up the "winning teams" argument and complain that Cousins cant beat a winning team. How has our D helped Cousins in those games? Has our defense been able to beat "winning teams"? Or is everything on the QB? In those 5 games above, they gave up 25.4 points a game which would fall at 24th in the NFL. They've given up 387.3 yards per game in those 5 games. Which would fall at 28th in the NFL. 24th and 28th in the NFL in those games. Thats not just below average but well below average.

In the end, you're contradicting yourself by ripping Cousins but defending the D when they have been worse against winning teams. At least Cousins played well vs. Philly and Seattle and decent against KC. Yeah both GB games werent good. But overall he's been better in those games than the defense has. But you're sitting here week after week defending the defense. Just another example of you wanting things to count when its on your terms. You're notorious for hating on Cousins but defending the defense (and even the OL....woof) but fail to ever discuss this defense maybe "padding their stats" against the bad teams. When have they "showed up" against a winning team? They havent. Less than Cousins has shown up I can tell you that. So please, dont sit here and try to defend this defense. In 2017, sure defend it all you want, but this is FAR from the 2017 defense and has been a problem vs. winning teams this year.

[StumpHunter]

Weak. How about Cousins wins a single playoff game before we start claiming Cousins can do nothing to win some fans over.

Weak? Yeah those numbers seem pretty "weak" and that includes wins. But sure, let's add one more narrative to this. He's already proved plenty of them wrong already.

I hope he STARTS to prove every "hater" wrong and beats the Saints.

Pretty sure he has already started. I've already named plenty of narratives that he's put to bed already this year.

"Well" compared to what? They are 6th in scoring and 4th in turnovers. Top 10 by any measure that affects winning. Statistically they are ranked about the same as the Offense. Did the offense not play "well" this year either?

....weak. The GB and LAC game they played well. But let's talk how they played against "winning teams" since that seems to be a big thing with the offense.

-Crapped the bed week 2 vs. GB. Granted they held up in the 2nd half but put us in a HUGE hole in the 1st half giving up 21.
-Let Philly right back in the game, gave up 400 total yards, lucky enough Cousins had to save us.
-Gave up nearly 400 yards again vs. KC. Struggled against a QB that was 2 weeks into the league and gave up a 91 yard TD to a below average RB and below average running team.
-Was walked on by Seattle giving up almost 450 total yards and 37 points.
-Then played much better vs. GB the 2nd time but still gave up almost 400 total yards.

So you tell me how they've really been playing when it matters? You always want to bring up the "winning teams" argument and complain that Cousins cant beat a winning team. How has our D helped Cousins in those games? Has our defense been able to beat "winning teams"? Or is everything on the QB? In those 5 games above, they gave up 25.4 points a game which would fall at 24th in the NFL. They've given up 387.3 yards per game in those 5 games. Which would fall at 28th in the NFL. 24th and 28th in the NFL in those games. Thats not just below average but well below average.

In the end, you're contradicting yourself by ripping Cousins but defending the D when they have been worse against winning teams. At least Cousins played well vs. Philly and Seattle and decent against KC. Yeah both GB games werent good. But overall he's been better in those games than the defense has. But you're sitting here week after week defending the defense. Just another example of you wanting things to count when its on your terms. You're notorious for hating on Cousins but defending the defense (and even the OL....woof) but fail to ever discuss this defense maybe "padding their stats" against the bad teams. When have they "showed up" against a winning team? They havent. Less than Cousins has shown up I can tell you that. So please, dont sit here and try to defend this defense. In 2017, sure defend it all you want, but this is FAR from the 2017 defense and has been a problem vs. winning teams this year.

Well, let's see. The average points scored by offenses this season was 23. The Vikings defense has given up more than that in 4 games this season. The offense has scored less than that in 7. Which has been more consistent?

I would say the offense and defense have had good seasons based on the numbers, but by your logic neither has. Doesn't bode well for the playoffs.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

I really do wish I was optimistic about the Vikings chances. Throughout all the Cousins debate earlier in the season, I have always stood by my position that he's not a winner. The Pro-Cousins posters were pointing to all the good games, and stats. Some were proclaiming some early games as BIG games to prove that he COULD win the big game. But I stated before the Seattle game, that none of the games prior to that were big games. Looking forward I saw Seattle, Green Bay and the first playoff game as the only Big Games. I predicted that the Cousins that I know won't lead the team to victories in these games. So far....they are 0-2.

Was he the reason the Vikings lost to Seattle? NO. He had a really good game. Was he the reason they lost to Green Bay? NO Though he didn't play well, the blame could be spread around and mostly on the terrible OL play. BUT here's the thing....he wasn't the reason they lost, but for one time, in a BIG game, I want him to be the reason we win. Most of the time (though there are acceptations) teams that win the Super Bowl had a game along the way where they're QB was the reason that they won the game. Maybe on a game winning drive at the end...or maybe it was just one throw that was made at the biggest part of the game.

So, like I've said before. Cousins can have the statistically good game (like against Seattle) but when he needs to make that one or tow throws, at a crucial time, maybe when things broke down around him, he doesn't do it. Again, I repeat...he may not be the reason we lose, but to date, he hasn't given me any reason to expect him to be the reason we win.

Do I want him to prove me wrong? ABSOLUTELY!! Go Vikings!!

[J. Kapp 11]

Honestly, I couldn’t care less about sustained success. I’ve been a fan for all but one of their division titles, all their SBs, all their conference championship games. I’ve seen a pretty solid form of sustained success. The Vikings are one of the most successful teams of the past 50 years.

What I (and all of us) have never experienced is a Super Bowl victory. All I want is one. Obviously that’s not what everybody wants, but for me ... one and I can die.

After all, you can’t have New England-style sustained success until you get the first one. For me, let’s get the first one ... then we can be spoiled.

Im with you 100%. What I’m saying is I don’t think we have the leadership to get there. Not to that next level. The difficulty with being relatively successful is it keeps people around to perpetuate the pattern. What I described as being stuck in this sort of average success limbo. The only way to break out is to take a risk and restructure the team. I think Zimmer is a great guy and an excellent defensive mind. But we need a head coach and I think he’s in over his head in that respect. Same with Spielman, he has an eye for talent but is spectacularly bad at plugging certain holes. The o-line hasn’t been good for a decade and I’ve gone over many times how poorly he’s managed the QB position. Not speaking about Cousins, again it’s a 10 year pattern.

It’s the definition of insanity. If we want different results, we need to try new things.

Can’t argue anything you’ve said here.

About a week ago, right after the Packer debacle, I declared my breakup from the Zimmer coaching regime. It saddens me because I really like the guy, and the players would run through fire for him. But we just keep coming up short in big games. We have better personnel than Green Bay. Of that I’m convinced. But we didn’t play them near as tough as a pretty bad Detroit team did yesterday. We simply didn’t adjust offensively. On defense, our guys played their butts off, but nearly 40 minutes on the field did them in.

Whatever it takes, I just want our Vikings to hoist one Lombardi trophy in my lifetime. I’m afraid what it’s going to take is yet another regime change.

[Tark]

The Vikings are quite simply, slightly above average. Hence the reason they do well every other year. Play poorly, get an easier schedule and do better. The following year the schedule is harder and regress back to the mean. They’ve bounced between a .500 team and a wildcard team for a while now. Playing well in odd years and poorly in even. I don’t think it’s coincidence.

There are worse situations to be in for sure, at least you get a post season every other year but it’s clearly not the recipe for the next tier or sustained success.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less about sustained success. I’ve been a fan for all but one of their division titles, all their SBs, all their conference championship games. I’ve seen a pretty solid form of sustained success. The Vikings are one of the most successful teams of the past 50 years.

What I (and all of us) have never experienced is a Super Bowl victory. All I want is one. Obviously that’s not what everybody wants, but for me ... one and I can die.

After all, you can’t have New England-style sustained success until you get the first one. For me, let’s get the first one ... then we can be spoiled.

Amen, brother.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

I mostly agree Kapp. I'm willing to give Stefanski a little more time since he's brand new to the position. I have been on the fence with Zimmer for so long. I think he's a good defensive coach, though I think his defenses are usually overrated or overhyped. You'd think sometimes that he's some sort of defensive mastermind or something when you listen to the media. But I think I'm ready to move on. The blame for this years lackluster underperformance of the team has to be placed somewhere. To me, the team always seems woefully underprepared, especially in the big games. And for all my criticisms of Cousins shortcomings, some of that also has to be placed at the feet of the head coach. (and QB coach) Part of being a coach is part x's and o's and part psychologist. I'm just not sure he's great at instilling confidence into players when they need it. Geez....I hope all of my belly aching comes back to bite me, and the Vikes cruise to a Super Bowl appearance...uh I mean Super Bowl win.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Weak? Yeah those numbers seem pretty "weak" and that includes wins. But sure, let's add one more narrative to this. He's already proved plenty of them wrong already.



Pretty sure he has already started. I've already named plenty of narratives that he's put to bed already this year.




....weak. The GB and LAC game they played well. But let's talk how they played against "winning teams" since that seems to be a big thing with the offense.

-Crapped the bed week 2 vs. GB. Granted they held up in the 2nd half but put us in a HUGE hole in the 1st half giving up 21.
-Let Philly right back in the game, gave up 400 total yards, lucky enough Cousins had to save us.
-Gave up nearly 400 yards again vs. KC. Struggled against a QB that was 2 weeks into the league and gave up a 91 yard TD to a below average RB and below average running team.
-Was walked on by Seattle giving up almost 450 total yards and 37 points.
-Then played much better vs. GB the 2nd time but still gave up almost 400 total yards.

So you tell me how they've really been playing when it matters? You always want to bring up the "winning teams" argument and complain that Cousins cant beat a winning team. How has our D helped Cousins in those games? Has our defense been able to beat "winning teams"? Or is everything on the QB? In those 5 games above, they gave up 25.4 points a game which would fall at 24th in the NFL. They've given up 387.3 yards per game in those 5 games. Which would fall at 28th in the NFL. 24th and 28th in the NFL in those games. Thats not just below average but well below average.

In the end, you're contradicting yourself by ripping Cousins but defending the D when they have been worse against winning teams. At least Cousins played well vs. Philly and Seattle and decent against KC. Yeah both GB games werent good. But overall he's been better in those games than the defense has. But you're sitting here week after week defending the defense. Just another example of you wanting things to count when its on your terms. You're notorious for hating on Cousins but defending the defense (and even the OL....woof) but fail to ever discuss this defense maybe "padding their stats" against the bad teams. When have they "showed up" against a winning team? They havent. Less than Cousins has shown up I can tell you that. So please, dont sit here and try to defend this defense. In 2017, sure defend it all you want, but this is FAR from the 2017 defense and has been a problem vs. winning teams this year.

Well, let's see. The average points scored by offenses this season was 23. The Vikings defense has given up more than that in 4 games this season. The offense has scored less than that in 7. Which has been more consistent?

I would say the offense and defense have had good seasons based on the numbers, but by your logic neither has. Doesn't bode well for the playoffs.

You’re missing my point. When has the defense showed up in a game against a winning team? GB in week 16? Sure Any others...no. The whole “big game/winning team” argument looks better for the offense than it does the defense. But your gripe is the offense.

You’re continuing to look at the entire season. Stop. You always want to discuss big games and winning teams with this offense/cousins. So like I said, let’s do it with this defense you constantly defend. They’ve sucked in big games. Flat out sucked. Continuing to use your averages on the YEAR doesnt mean anything. Like sweet, we can shut down David Blough, Daniel Jones and Keenum/Haskins, etc. Go defense. Games like those are what makes this stat you’re trying to use look better than it is. I just provided the numbers for every winning team we played and how did the defense do in those games? Not good, not average, they were well below average. Some of those games, the offense actually played pretty well. Hardly any of those games did the defense play well.

In those games against winning teams, our offense averages 24.6 points a game. That sits at 11th in the nfl currently. In those same games our defense has given up 25.4 points a game which sits at 24th in the nfl.

So let’s see, 11th on offense compared to 24th on defense vs winning teams. And who did you say is the problem against winning teams? I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

[StumpHunter]

Well, let's see. The average points scored by offenses this season was 23. The Vikings defense has given up more than that in 4 games this season. The offense has scored less than that in 7. Which has been more consistent?

I would say the offense and defense have had good seasons based on the numbers, but by your logic neither has. Doesn't bode well for the playoffs.

You’re missing my point. When has the defense showed up in a game against a winning team? GB in week 16? Sure Any others...no. The whole “big game/winning team” argument looks better for the offense than it does the defense. But your gripe is the offense.

You’re continuing to look at the entire season. Stop. You always want to discuss big games and winning teams with this offense/cousins. So like I said, let’s do it with this defense you constantly defend. They’ve sucked in big games. Flat out sucked. Continuing to use your averages on the YEAR doesnt mean anything. Like sweet, we can shut down David Blough, Daniel Jones and Keenum/Haskins, etc. Go defense. Games like those are what makes this stat you’re trying to use look better than it is. I just provided the numbers for every winning team we played and how did the defense do in those games? Not good, not average, they were well below average. Some of those games, the offense actually played pretty well. Hardly any of those games did the defense play well.

In those games against winning teams, our offense averages 24.6 points a game. That sits at 11th in the nfl currently. In those same games our defense has given up 25.4 points a game which sits at 24th in the nfl.

So let’s see, 11th on offense compared to 24th on defense vs winning teams. And who did you say is the problem against winning teams? I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

The offense didn't score 24.6, they scored 22.6 on average. You are giving them credit for a TD scored by the defense in the Seattle game. Both offensive and defensive numbers are inflated because of one game and you take out the outliers of Seattle and Philly, and the defense average 22 ppg, while the offense averaged 18. The offense only scored more than 23 in one game, against the worst winning team they played, that only made it to 9-7 because of the terrible division they play in.

So again, by your logic, the offense wasn't good.

I think they had a pretty good year, but I can see your point. They did struggle against EVERY good team they played and padded their stats against the bad defenses.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You’re missing my point. When has the defense showed up in a game against a winning team? GB in week 16? Sure Any others...no. The whole “big game/winning team” argument looks better for the offense than it does the defense. But your gripe is the offense.

You’re continuing to look at the entire season. Stop. You always want to discuss big games and winning teams with this offense/cousins. So like I said, let’s do it with this defense you constantly defend. They’ve sucked in big games. Flat out sucked. Continuing to use your averages on the YEAR doesnt mean anything. Like sweet, we can shut down David Blough, Daniel Jones and Keenum/Haskins, etc. Go defense. Games like those are what makes this stat you’re trying to use look better than it is. I just provided the numbers for every winning team we played and how did the defense do in those games? Not good, not average, they were well below average. Some of those games, the offense actually played pretty well. Hardly any of those games did the defense play well.

In those games against winning teams, our offense averages 24.6 points a game. That sits at 11th in the nfl currently. In those same games our defense has given up 25.4 points a game which sits at 24th in the nfl.

So let’s see, 11th on offense compared to 24th on defense vs winning teams. And who did you say is the problem against winning teams? I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

The offense didn't score 24.6, they scored 22.6 on average. You are giving them credit for a TD scored by the defense in the Seattle game. Both offensive and defensive numbers are inflated because of one game and you take out the outliers of Seattle and Philly, and the defense average 22 ppg, while the offense averaged 18. The offense only scored more than 23 in one game, against the worst winning team they played, that only made it to 9-7 because of the terrible division they play in.

So again, by your logic, the offense wasn't good.

I think they had a pretty good year, but I can see your point. They did struggle against EVERY good team they played and padded their stats against the bad defenses.

Lol there you go, trying to make a point by not counting Philly and Seattle. The classic “it only counts when stump says so”. Sorry pal, doesn’t work that way. Those were games the offense played very well in and games where the defense continued to fail them. So nope, by my logic and the numbers I’ve posted, the offense has clearly outplayed the defense this year. More so the defense has been downright bad against winning teams.

Seattle and philly count. No outliers. They count. If we didn’t play those games, sure the offensive numbers go down, but we played those games. They were legitimate games. But why do you want to “push those games aside”? Because they hurt your argument. You took the 2 of the worst defensive games and best 2 offensive games out of it to try and prove your point. Laugh out loud. Stop trying to weasel your way into cancelling things out so you can prove a point. You do this all the time and it’s ridiculously annoying and an overall weak approach when you know you’re arguments buried. You’ve proved nothing, other than you, once again, looking for a loop hole to try and make your point valid. “A” for effort, “F” for execution

[YikesVikes]

There have been plenty of coaches that have played their starters into week 17 despite clinching playoffs. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Also, not many playoffs teams set a record for lack of productivity in week 16. So you know, context.

I’m interested to know what teams you’re referring to....

You don't really expect me to go back thru history and list all the teams that decided to play their players instead of rest. The fact that it is not an automatic decision should at least let you know that both options are viable.

[StumpHunter]

The offense didn't score 24.6, they scored 22.6 on average. You are giving them credit for a TD scored by the defense in the Seattle game. Both offensive and defensive numbers are inflated because of one game and you take out the outliers of Seattle and Philly, and the defense average 22 ppg, while the offense averaged 18. The offense only scored more than 23 in one game, against the worst winning team they played, that only made it to 9-7 because of the terrible division they play in.

So again, by your logic, the offense wasn't good.

I think they had a pretty good year, but I can see your point. They did struggle against EVERY good team they played and padded their stats against the bad defenses.

Lol there you go, trying to make a point by not counting Philly and Seattle. The classic “it only counts when stump says so”. Sorry pal, doesn’t work that way. Those were games the offense played very well in and games where the defense continued to fail them. So nope, by my logic and the numbers I’ve posted, the offense has clearly outplayed the defense this year. More so the defense has been downright bad against winning teams.

Seattle and philly count. No outliers. They count. If we didn’t play those games, sure the offensive numbers go down, but we played those games. They were legitimate games. But why do you want to “push those games aside”? Because they hurt your argument. You took the 2 of the worst defensive games and best 2 offensive games out of it to try and prove your point. Laugh out loud. Stop trying to weasel your way into cancelling things out so you can prove a point. You do this all the time and it’s ridiculously annoying and an overall weak approach when you know you’re arguments buried. You’ve proved nothing, other than you, once again, looking for a loop hole to try and make your point valid. “A” for effort, “F” for execution

26, 23, 21, 20, 37

16,10,23, 38, 23

One of the numbers is dramatically different than the others. If you don't like taking those numbers out of the set, that is fine.

Let's look at how the team performed against the opposition's average ppg.

Philly:
Scored above on offense, below on defense
Seattle:
Scored below on offense, above on defense
GB X 2:
Below on offense, below on defense
KC:
Above on offense, below on defense

3 games where the offense scored below the oppositions average points given up, 1 game where the defense gave up more than the opposing team's average.

The majority of games against winning teams the offense performed below average versus the opposition's defense. 1 game the defense performed below average against the oppositions offense.

The one game they won both offense and defense performed above expected, which is expected, since it typically takes both to win against the best.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Lol there you go, trying to make a point by not counting Philly and Seattle. The classic “it only counts when stump says so”. Sorry pal, doesn’t work that way. Those were games the offense played very well in and games where the defense continued to fail them. So nope, by my logic and the numbers I’ve posted, the offense has clearly outplayed the defense this year. More so the defense has been downright bad against winning teams.

Seattle and philly count. No outliers. They count. If we didn’t play those games, sure the offensive numbers go down, but we played those games. They were legitimate games. But why do you want to “push those games aside”? Because they hurt your argument. You took the 2 of the worst defensive games and best 2 offensive games out of it to try and prove your point. Laugh out loud. Stop trying to weasel your way into cancelling things out so you can prove a point. You do this all the time and it’s ridiculously annoying and an overall weak approach when you know you’re arguments buried. You’ve proved nothing, other than you, once again, looking for a loop hole to try and make your point valid. “A” for effort, “F” for execution

26, 23, 21, 20, 37

16,10,23, 38, 23

One of the numbers is dramatically different than the others. If you don't like taking those numbers out of the set, that is fine.

Let's look at how the team performed against the opposition's average ppg.

Philly:
Scored above on offense, below on defense
Seattle:
Scored below on offense, above on defense
GB X 2:
Below on offense, below on defense
KC:
Above on offense, below on defense

3 games where the offense scored below the oppositions average points given up, 1 game where the defense gave up more than the opposing team's average.

The majority of games against winning teams the offense performed below average versus the opposition's defense. 1 game the defense performed below average against the oppositions offense.

The one game they won both offense and defense performed above expected, which is expected, since it typically takes both to win against the best.

At this point, I have zero care about what you have to say. I’ve made my point and am sick of trying to get through that thick head of yours

[Pondering Her Percy]

I’m interested to know what teams you’re referring to....

You don't really expect me to go back thru history and list all the teams that decided to play their players instead of rest. The fact that it is not an automatic decision should at least let you know that both options are viable.

No my point is, I’ve literally never heard of a team playing their starters week 17 if they are already locked in a playoff spot and can’t go up or down. It simply doesn’t happen. I would be willing to bet it hasn’t ever happened. At least in the last 10 years

[YikesVikes]

You don't really expect me to go back thru history and list all the teams that decided to play their players instead of rest. The fact that it is not an automatic decision should at least let you know that both options are viable.

No my point is, I’ve literally never heard of a team playing their starters week 17 if they are already locked in a playoff spot and can’t go up or down. It simply doesn’t happen. I would be willing to bet it hasn’t ever happened. At least in the last 10 years

Again, if it was a forgone conclusion, it would be a non-story. They ask because not everyone does it or has done it historically.
I would like you to consider this. A list of #1 teams in a conference that rested week 17 and the results. Way too many losses for my liking. These are teams that typically did not have question marks over their heads.

Year Team End result
2007 Cowboys Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Giants
2008 Giants Finished 12-4, lost first playoff game to the Eagles
2008 Titans Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Ravens
2009 Saints Finished 13-3, won the Super Bowl
2009 Colts Finished 14-2, lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl
2010 Patriots Finished 14-2, lost first playoff game to the Jets
2011 Packers Finished 15-1, lost first playoff game to the Giants
2014 Patriots Finished 12-4, won the Super Bowl
2016 Cowboys Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Packers
2017 Eagles Finished 13-3, won the Super Bowl

[Pondering Her Percy]

No my point is, I’ve literally never heard of a team playing their starters week 17 if they are already locked in a playoff spot and can’t go up or down. It simply doesn’t happen. I would be willing to bet it hasn’t ever happened. At least in the last 10 years

Again, if it was a forgone conclusion, it would be a non-story. They ask because not everyone does it or has done it historically.
I would like you to consider this. A list of #1 teams in a conference that rested week 17 and the results. Way too many losses for my liking. These are teams that typically did not have question marks over their heads.

Year Team End result
2007 Cowboys Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Giants
2008 Giants Finished 12-4, lost first playoff game to the Eagles
2008 Titans Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Ravens
2009 Saints Finished 13-3, won the Super Bowl
2009 Colts Finished 14-2, lost to the Saints in the Super Bowl
2010 Patriots Finished 14-2, lost first playoff game to the Jets
2011 Packers Finished 15-1, lost first playoff game to the Giants
2014 Patriots Finished 12-4, won the Super Bowl
2016 Cowboys Finished 13-3, lost first playoff game to the Packers
2017 Eagles Finished 13-3, won the Super Bowl

I mean an interesting stat, but I simply don’t agree with playing our starters week 17, especially given the health of our team at the time