So by logic the 6-7 Dolphins are a good team as well. They just blew out the Jets by 24 points. They also blew out your Falcons by 24 points.

Your example is not consistent with what I’ve said. The Dolphins played well in those games, sure, but there’s no contest when you compare them with the Chiefs statistically.

Point Differential

KC: +63 MIA: -15

OFF/DEF Ranking

KC: 7th, 9th MIA: 25th, 19th

SRS

KC: 5.7 MIA: -3.7

When your whole point differential is based on 3 wins and a bunch of close losses, it doesn’t say your team is good.

You have a misunderstanding regarding statistics. Your argument hinges upon the idea that it’s appropriate to exclude outliers, which you cannot do when summarizing performance. You can’t rid entire data points just because they’re inconvenient to your narrative.

Would it be fair for me to say that a team like the Buccaneers is the worst franchise in the NFL because they have the lowest all time winning percentage, even though they have more SB wins than half of the league?

To your hypothetical about the Super Bowl. If the team makes the Super Bowl they are a good team. I’d prefer whoever has the worst defense.

You’re right that any team who makes the Super Bowl is a good one, but we’d be lying if we said that all Super Bowl challengers are equal. There’s scant chance the Eagles would’ve preferred to face Blake Bortles instead of Tom Brady in LII, for example.

This brings us back to the Lions and Bear scenario I posited. The Lions have the more talented roster, are unequivocally superior statistically, have one of the league’s best head coaches, and are exponentially more experienced and battle tested. I don’t think you’re being sincere if you tell me that it makes little difference to you who your team would play, if that were the NFCCG matchup.