2002 realignment was the worst thing to ever happen to the AFC East

[Soko]

Win percentage against non-division opponents, Brady era sans 2017.

AFC East sans Pats: .473

AFC West: .500 (.466 sans Broncos).

AFC South: .486 (.442 sans Colts). 

AFC North: .510 (.476 sans Steelers).

NFC East: .525 (.510 sans Eagles). 

NFC West: .440 (.404 sans Seahawks).

NFC North: .480 (.446 sans Packers).

NFC South: .511 (.494 sans Falcons). 

Patriots win % against division: .776

Patriots win % outside division: .759 (the following three percentages were AFC teams - Steelers, Colts, Broncos). 

Patriots win % against teams that finished 9-7 or better: .610 (that percentage is higher than any percentage of any team in the NFC overall except for Green Bay). The only other team with a winning record vs 9-7 or better opponents is Pittsburgh. 

Patriots win % against teams that finished in the playoffs: .622 (no other team even had a winning record). 

2002: Jets playoff appearance (Dolphins miss at 9-7).

2003: Dolphins miss playoffs at 10-6.

2004: Jets playoff appearance.

2005: Dolphins miss playoffs at 9-7.

2006: Jets playoff appearance.

2007: All teams obliterated.

2008: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2009: Jets playoff appearance. 

2010: Jets playoff appearance.

2011: Jets miss playoffs at 8-8.

2012: All teams with losing records.

2013: Jets/Dolphins miss playoffs at 8-8.

2014: Bills miss playoffs at 9-7.

2015: Jets miss playoffs at 10-6.

2016: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2017: Bills playoff appearance.

— 

@cddolphin @footbull3196

[Malik]

2 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Depends who you ask regarding hindsight. Bledsoe had a good career, but he wasn't so good he wasn't replaceable in his prime. Which is what happened when he got dealt to Buffalo, and then cut from Buffalo for JP Losman after 3 years (which was stupid on Buffalo's part as he wasn't as bad as Losman). I never thought Tyrod was good. Same with Tannehill. Dolphins should have already moved on. A "trap QB" isn't an excuse to be content with mediocrity. Move on. Tannehill has had his chances. At least draft someone high to compete. That's what these teams should be doing every three or four years. Or take two quarterbacks high in the same draft. It's not like their other approaches have worked. Three teams have had more than enough time to find one guy though. Miami didn't pull the trigger on Brees with his injury concerns, but then did so on 32 year old Pennington. Buffalo gave Fitzpatrick a fat contract before they really knew what they had in him. I don't believe the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins are all just victims of circumstance this entire time. 

They aren't. They've had bad team building outside of the Jets between 09-11. The Jets unfortunately fell into one of the worst QBs to be drafted with Mark Sanchez. A league average QB would have had them be competitive near every season since then even with some bad drafts. We talk about it over in the Jets forum all the time about how little offensive help the team has gotten in free agency or in the draft. Thomas Jones, Eric Decker, and Brandon Marshall have been the only pro bowl caliber offensive players not on the line. They all had 1 or 2 great seasons though. 

To be fair, the Dolphins are the only team that really missed huge on QBs during this time with Drew Brees in 2006 and Matt Ryan in 2008.

[footbull3196]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

Win percentage against non-division opponents, Brady era sans 2017.

AFC East sans Pats: .473

AFC West: .500 (.466 sans Broncos).

AFC South: .486 (.442 sans Colts). 

AFC North: .510 (.476 sans Steelers).

NFC East: .525 (.510 sans Eagles). 

NFC West: .440 (.404 sans Seahawks).

NFC North: .480 (.446 sans Packers).

NFC South: .511 (.494 sans Falcons). 

Patriots win % against division: .776

Patriots win % outside division: .759 (the following three percentages were AFC teams - Steelers, Colts, Broncos). 

Patriots win % against teams that finished 9-7 or better: .610 (that percentage is higher than any percentage of any team in the NFC overall except for Green Bay). The only other team with a winning record vs 9-7 or better opponents is Pittsburgh. 

Patriots win % against teams that finished in the playoffs: .622 (no other team even had a winning record). 

2002: Jets playoff appearance (Dolphins miss at 9-7).

2003: Dolphins miss playoffs at 10-6.

2004: Jets playoff appearance.

2005: Dolphins miss playoffs at 9-7.

2006: Jets playoff appearance.

2007: All teams obliterated.

2008: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2009: Jets playoff appearance. 

2010: Jets playoff appearance.

2011: Jets miss playoffs at 8-8.

2012: All teams with losing records.

2013: Jets/Dolphins miss playoffs at 8-8.

2014: Bills miss playoffs at 9-7.

2015: Jets miss playoffs at 10-6.

2016: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2017: Bills playoff appearance.

— 

@cddolphin @footbull3196

But do you see my point that being a potential contender for a wild card playoff spot isnt the same as providing real competition that can unseat the Patriots within the division?  At no point in time were the Jets, Dolphins, or Bills considered even remotely a threat to the Patriots reign.  Maybe the 2010 Jets would fit the criteria, but again, that was an isolated incident over a 16 year period.  Say what you want about the NFC North or AFC South, but at least those divisions had legitimate championship contenders other than the Packers and Colts over that same time period.  Just because the Patriots perform well against all teams and not just the Dolphins / Jets / Bills doesnt mean that the Dolphins / Jets / Bills have been pulling their weight this entire time

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, rich homie said:

Just in terms of wins, the 2007 AFC South has more wins than any other division since the 2002 realignment. That's the whole point of the 2 extra wins

I get that, but they weren’t a better division. Every team in the NFC East lost one game to the Patriots who were undefeated that’s four losses right there that everyone but the Colts in the south didn’t have to deal with 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

But do you see my point that being a potential contender for a wild card playoff spot isnt the same as providing real competition that can unseat the Patriots within the division?  At no point in time were the Jets, Dolphins, or Bills considered even remotely a threat to the Patriots reign.  Maybe the 2010 Jets would fit the criteria, but again, that was an isolated incident over a 16 year period. 

Well the Jets went to two straight AFC championship games. Not sure why we’d just toss that out, should we just toss out the two Broncos SB appearances? They’re outliers too,

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

Say what you want about the NFC North or AFC South, but at least those divisions had legitimate championship contenders other than the Packers and Colts over that same time period. 

The Titans went and lost, once. The Bears went and lost, once. You’re going to boast about that when the Jets could’ve  easily went in back to back years? 

Look, I’m not saying any of the teams were serious SB contenders like the Ravens/Steelers or something. The AFC East largely lacked that, but so do most divisions in any given year. W/L says that the AFC East is far from the worst, eve disclosing NE.

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

Just because the Patriots perform well against all teams and not just the Dolphins / Jets / Bills doesnt mean that the Dolphins / Jets / Bills have been pulling their weight this entire time

I posted a stat that had the division’s record, without the Patriots. The AFC East’s winning percentage sans NE is better than most other division’s win percentage sans their best team. 

[7DnBrnc53]

On 10/26/2018 at 1:23 PM, INbengalfan said:

Realignment tried to stay geographic, but the owners decided to keep rivalries alive (Dallas in the NFCE).  They should have just put Baltimore in the East, Miami in the south, and Indy in the north.  But the Ravens insisted on being kept together with the Browns, the Browns wanted to keep rivalries with the Steelers, Bengals Ravens, while the Bengals wanted to maintain the rivalries with the Browns and Steelers.

Yeah, Baltimore in the AFC East was looked at in 2002 (with Miami in the South). If that happens, I see the Ravens winning division titles in 2006, 08, & 09 with 11 and 14 being possibilities.

[footbull3196]

2 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Well the Jets went to two straight AFC championship games. Not sure why we’d just toss that out, should we just toss out the two Broncos SB appearances? They’re outliers too,

The Titans went and lost, once. The Bears went and lost, once. You’re going to boast about that when the Jets could’ve  easily went in back to back years? 

Look, I’m not saying any of the teams were serious SB contenders like the Ravens/Steelers or something. The AFC East largely lacked that, but so do most divisions in any given year. W/L says that the AFC East is far from the worst, eve disclosing NE.

I posted a stat that had the division’s record, without the Patriots. The AFC East’s winning percentage sans NE is better than most other division’s win percentage sans their best team. 

You're forgetting about the Bears going to a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman as their quarterback.  So they actually went twice and won once and lost once.  And the Vikings have been to 2 NFC Championship Games over that same time period.  The AFC East has had 1 team make 2 consecutive AFC championship game appearances and a large amount of nothing else.  I'd say it's arguable the AFC South sans Indy has been as bad as the AFC East sans New England, but it's definitely not arguable that the NFC North has been better than both of those divisions sans Green Bay

AFC East may not be the absolute bottom of the barrel, but it's not that far from it either 

[Soko]

12 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

You're forgetting about the Bears going to a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman as their quarterback.  So they actually went twice and won once and lost once.  And the Vikings have been to 2 NFC Championship Games over that same time period.  The AFC East has had 1 team make 2 consecutive AFC championship game appearances and a large amount of nothing else.  I'd say it's arguable the AFC South sans Indy has been as bad as the AFC East sans New England, but it's definitely not arguable that the NFC North has been better than both of those divisions sans Green Bay

AFC East may not be the absolute bottom of the barrel, but it's not that far from it either 

So the AFC East having a larger win percentage w/o NE (.473) than both the NFC North w/o GB (.446) and AFC South w/o IND (.442) is insignificant? In fact, the AFC East w/o NE is closer to the NFC North (.480) and AFC South (.486) overall.

The postseason trips are almost irrelevant over a 16 year span if they are going to be terrible for 12/16 of those remaining seasons. The AFC East had a non-Patriots team make the playoffs in 8/16 of those seasons. And 4/8 of the other seasons where there wasn’t a playoff team, a non-Patriots team won 9 or more games. People just look at “no QB” and “no consistent team” and run with it. It’s lazy.

Your only argument is that there weren’t enough years where there were SB contenders (arbitrarily said 2 years by the Jets weren’t enough, despite the AFC South being largely the same), but the actual wins and losses show the division was winning games. 

[footbull3196]

7 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

So the AFC East having a larger win percentage w/o NE (.473) than both the NFC North w/o GB (.446) and AFC South w/o IND (.442) is insignificant? In fact, the AFC East w/o NE is closer to the NFC North (.480) and AFC South (.486) overall.

The postseason trips are almost irrelevant over a 16 year span if they are going to be terrible for 12/16 of those remaining seasons. The AFC East had a non-Patriots team make the playoffs in 8/16 of those seasons. And 4/8 of the other seasons where there wasn’t a playoff team, a non-Patriots team won 9 or more games. People just look at “no QB” and “no consistent team” and run with it. It’s lazy.

Your only argument is that there weren’t enough years where there were SB contenders (arbitrarily said 2 years by the Jets weren’t enough, despite the AFC South being largely the same), but the actual wins and losses show the division was winning games. 

Yeah, I would say it's a little less significant than you're making it out to be.  The NFC North is dragged down by a decade of historic futility from the Lions, as is the AFC South with Jacksonville from 2008-16

Let's take the NFC North for example.  In 7/16 years, a team other than the Packers has won the division. In the other 9 seasons where the Packers won the division, another team won 8 games or more in every season except 2002 (including the 2012 season where 3 teams won 10 games, something that neither the AFC East or AFC South has had).  In the seasons where the Packers didnt win the division, either another team or the Packers won 9+ games in all but one of them

I've already said you can feel free to put the AFC South without the Colts in the same boat as the AFC East without the Patriots and I wouldn't even think about arguing against it.  I'm just saying there's no need to drag other divisions into it.  Clearly the AFC East and AFC South have been the 2 worst divisions outside of their best teams 

[Soko]

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Yeah, I would say it's a little less significant than you're making it out to be.  The NFC North is dragged down by a decade of historic futility from the Lions, as is the AFC South with Jacksonville from 2008-16

Less significant, why? Because the Jags and Lions? Aren’t they still a part of the division? That’s now how it works, we’re not debating “which division is worse minus the worst teams.” And even if we were:

Lions between 2002-2017: 4 winning seasons. 

Jaguars between 2002-2017: 4 winning seasons.

Bills between 2002-2017: 3 winning seasons.

Or if you get rid of 2017, everyone goes down one. Point still stands.

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Let's take the NFC North for example.  In 7/16 years, a team other than the Packers has won the division.

And twice for NE. NE’s dominance doesn’t prove that the AFCE is weaker - only that they are more dominant over it than GB is over the NFCN.

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

In the other 9 seasons where the Packers won the division, another team won 8 games or more in every season except 2002 (including the 2012 season where 3 teams won 10 games, something that neither the AFC East or AFC South has had).

And it happened in 14/16 of the times in the AFC East. Not really moving the needle there, especially when you consider the NFC North’s abysmal win percentage w/o GB and NE’s win percentage being much higher than GB’s. 

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

  In the seasons where the Packers didnt win the division, either another team or the Packers won 9+ games in all but one of them

Okay, and in the 2 seasons NE didn’t win the division, an AFC East team won 10 or more games to win it. 

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

I've already said you can feel free to put the AFC South without the Colts in the same boat as the AFC East without the Patriots and I wouldn't even think about arguing against it.  I'm just saying there's no need to drag other divisions into it.  Clearly the AFC East and AFC South have been the 2 worst divisions outside of their best teams 

You’re wrong, dude. You don’t get to downplay the W/L record because the  Lions were so bad but then boast about the Vikings/Bears in the seasons where they were relevant. They’re all weighted equally, that’s how averages work. 

Look, if you can look at the W/L percentages and come out to say that team division with the better record is worse, then all power to you. I can only give you the facts, but I can’t fix the logic.

[megatechpc]

Never really thought about it before but having 10+ years of Manning/Brady intra-divisional rivalry is something all NFL fans were absolutely cheated of.  I guarantee the Pats would NOT be the dominant 5 SB champs they are today had they had to play Manning twice a year and compete with him for the division every year he was in Indy.  This is the real crux of the argument being made in the OP in my opinion, not all these tired stats about how secretly "great" the AFCE actually is (which is the same sorry take I always see anytime someone bemoans the lack of any competition for NE in the AFCE; the historic W/L record within/without the division just totally misses the point that there is never any real threat to Brady and Co year in and year out).

[jvmillion83]

10 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Depends who you ask regarding hindsight. Bledsoe had a good career, but he wasn't so good he wasn't replaceable in his prime. Which is what happened when he got dealt to Buffalo, and then cut from Buffalo for JP Losman after 3 years (which was stupid on Buffalo's part as he wasn't as bad as Losman). I never thought Tyrod was good. Same with Tannehill. Dolphins should have already moved on. A "trap QB" isn't an excuse to be content with mediocrity. Move on. Tannehill has had his chances. At least draft someone high to compete. That's what these teams should be doing every three or four years. Or take two quarterbacks high in the same draft. It's not like their other approaches have worked. Three teams have had more than enough time to find one guy though. Miami didn't pull the trigger on Brees with his injury concerns, but then did so on 32 year old Pennington. Buffalogave Fitzpatrick a fat contract before they really knew what they had in him. I don't believe the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins are all just victims of circumstance this entire time. 

Exactly.  Someone posted a thread recently about players who have held franchises back and Tannehill was at the top of the list with Jay Cutler.  At least Andy Dalton had a great team on both sides of the ball (Miami didn't have nearly the talent like Cincy did in the  last five years or so) and this credit to the Cincy organization & reflection of poor job on Miami.  With guys like Pat Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz and others getting it done in the first year or two, there's no excuse why Tannehill gets like five years to figure it out.  I'll give the Jets just some small room just because Sanchez was working out (and they didn't hold Geno Smith that long) but what is the deal with Miami & Buffalo here?  

[footbull3196]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

Less significant, why? Because the Jags and Lions? Aren’t they still a part of the division? That’s now how it works, we’re not debating “which division is worse minus the worst teams.” And even if we were:

Lions between 2002-2017: 4 winning seasons. 

Jaguars between 2002-2017: 4 winning seasons.

Bills between 2002-2017: 3 winning seasons.

Or if you get rid of 2017, everyone goes down one. Point still stands.

Look I normally respect your opinion a good deal because you're one of the more knowledgeable posters at this site, but this just isn't an argument I can get behind.  I'll be honest, after looking at the regular season records in detail a bit more, I do see the point you're trying to make.  But I just dont buy that the AFC East has been competitive at all in itself, even after considering the fact that the division's regular season record is better than it gets credit for.  The bottom feeder in the division (Buffalo) hasnt had as bad of a regular season record as the Lions or Jaguars, yet they still have less playoff appearances to show for it than both of them since realignment

Quote

And twice for NE. NE’s dominance doesn’t prove that the AFCE is weaker - only that they are more dominant over it than GB is over the NFCN.

Fair enough.  Cant really disprove that at this point

Quote

And it happened in 14/16 of the times in the AFC East. Not really moving the needle there, especially when you consider the NFC North’s abysmal win percentage w/o GB and NE’s win percentage being much higher than GB’s. 

Would total number of playoff appearances or divisional titles or advancing to further rounds in the postseason move the needle at all?  Since 2002, the Vikings and Bears have made the playoffs 6 times and 3 times respectively in comparison to the Jets 5 and Dolphins 2.  The Vikings have won 4 divisional titles and the Bears have won 3, while the Jets and Dolphins have only won 1 apiece.  Both the Bears and Vikings have advanced to 2 conference championship games apiece with the Bears going to the Super Bowl in 2006, while the Jets 2 trips to the CC games are the only trips outside of the Patriots that the division has to show for it.  And the Bears have earned 1st round byes 3 different times in that time span, while the Vikings have earned 1st round byes twice.  The Jets and Dolphins have never earned a 1st round bye since realignment.  If I wanted to go a bit further into it I would say the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times compared to the Bills 1, but of course that's not saying very much so I'll let it be

Quote

Okay, and in the 2 seasons NE didn’t win the division, an AFC East team won 10 or more games to win it. 

No, in 2002, the Jets won it with 9 wins.  The 2008 Dolphins won it with 11 wins on a tiebreaker but were quickly eliminated by the Ravens since they were a pretty weak 11 win team in themselves

Quote

You’re wrong, dude. You don’t get to downplay the W/L record because the  Lions were so bad but then boast about the Vikings/Bears in the seasons where they were relevant. They’re all weighted equally, that’s how averages work. 

Look, if you can look at the W/L percentages and come out to say that team division with the better record is worse, then all power to you. I can only give you the facts, but I can’t fix the logic.

Ok, but you dont get to prop up the AFC East's regular season record and then ignore the fact that the NFC North outside of GB has had more postseason success than the AFC East outside of NE lol.  It works both ways

The AFC East outside of New England has 6 playoff wins since 2002 and theyre all from the Jets.  The NFC North outside of Green Bay has 6 playoff wins since 2002 and 3 of them are from Chicago and 3 from Minnesota.  However, 4 of the Jets playoff wins came over a 2 year span when they entered the playoffs as a wild card and advanced to the conference championship game as a wild card.  If we take everything into consideration, would I get to count the times that the Bears and Vikings entered the playoffs with a 1st round bye as a playoff win, since they didnt actually have to do anything to advance since they had not only won their division but also played well enough to earn a top 2 seed in the conference?  I wouldnt count the Bears 2005 season as a playoff win since they lost in the divisional round to the Panthers, but I would count an extra playoff win in the 2006 and 2010 seasons for Chicago, and I would count an extra win for Minnesota in 2009 and 2017.  That would bring the total to 10 playoff wins outside of Green Bay.  The reason I bring that up is because I dont think it's fair to count the Jets for 2 playoff wins in both the 2009 and 2010 seasons (which they rightfully earned) but then punish the Bears and Vikings at the same time for the seasons that they made the conference championship games because they only had to win 1 playoff game to get to the conference championship due to the fact that they had not only won their division during the regular season, but also played well enough in the conference to earn a 1st round bye, therefore eliminating the need to play a playoff game in the wild card round

It's up to you to decide if that's moving the goal posts or not.  I wouldnt argue against it either way.  My only point is that the NFC North outside of GB has clearly had more postseason success than the AFC East outside of NE since realignment, even if the regular season numbers are closer than I originally thought at the start of this thread

[Soko]

1 hour ago, footbull3196 said:

Look I normally respect your opinion a good deal because you're one of the more knowledgeable posters at this site, but this just isn't an argument I can get behind.  I'll be honest, after looking at the regular season records in detail a bit more, I do see the point you're trying to make.  But I just dont buy that the AFC East has been competitive at all in itself, even after considering the fact that the division's regular season record is better than it gets credit for.  The bottom feeder in the division (Buffalo) hasnt had as bad of a regular season record as the Lions or Jaguars, yet they still have less playoff appearances to show for it than both of them since realignment

Fair enough.  Cant really disprove that at this point

Would total number of playoff appearances or divisional titles or advancing to further rounds in the postseason move the needle at all?  Since 2002, the Vikings and Bears have made the playoffs 6 times and 3 times respectively in comparison to the Jets 5 and Dolphins 2.  The Vikings have won 4 divisional titles and the Bears have won 3, while the Jets and Dolphins have only won 1 apiece.  Both the Bears and Vikings have advanced to 2 conference championship games apiece with the Bears going to the Super Bowl in 2006, while the Jets 2 trips to the CC games are the only trips outside of the Patriots that the division has to show for it.  And the Bears have earned 1st round byes 3 different times in that time span, while the Vikings have earned 1st round byes twice.  The Jets and Dolphins have never earned a 1st round bye since realignment.  If I wanted to go a bit further into it I would say the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times compared to the Bills 1, but of course that's not saying very much so I'll let it be

No, in 2002, the Jets won it with 9 wins.  The 2008 Dolphins won it with 11 wins on a tiebreaker but were quickly eliminated by the Ravens since they were a pretty weak 11 win team in themselves

Ok, but you dont get to prop up the AFC East's regular season record and then ignore the fact that the NFC North outside of GB has had more postseason success than the AFC East outside of NE lol.  It works both ways

The AFC East outside of New England has 6 playoff wins since 2002 and theyre all from the Jets.  The NFC North outside of Green Bay has 6 playoff wins since 2002 and 3 of them are from Chicago and 3 from Minnesota.  However, 4 of the Jets playoff wins came over a 2 year span when they entered the playoffs as a wild card and advanced to the conference championship game as a wild card.  If we take everything into consideration, would I get to count the times that the Bears and Vikings entered the playoffs with a 1st round bye as a playoff win, since they didnt actually have to do anything to advance since they had not only won their division but also played well enough to earn a top 2 seed in the conference?  I wouldnt count the Bears 2005 season as a playoff win since they lost in the divisional round to the Panthers, but I would count an extra playoff win in the 2006 and 2010 seasons for Chicago, and I would count an extra win for Minnesota in 2009 and 2017.  That would bring the total to 10 playoff wins outside of Green Bay.  The reason I bring that up is because I dont think it's fair to count the Jets for 2 playoff wins in both the 2009 and 2010 seasons (which they rightfully earned) but then punish the Bears and Vikings at the same time for the seasons that they made the conference championship games because they only had to win 1 playoff game to get to the conference championship due to the fact that they had not only won their division during the regular season, but also played well enough in the conference to earn a 1st round bye, therefore eliminating the need to play a playoff game in the wild card round

It's up to you to decide if that's moving the goal posts or not.  I wouldnt argue against it either way.  My only point is that the NFC North outside of GB has clearly had more postseason success than the AFC East outside of NE since realignment, even if the regular season numbers are closer than I originally thought at the start of this thread

I respect your opinion as well. No disrespect intended.

I agree with you that the NFC North is largely the better division, and that they had more postseason success. I just dislike the POV that the AFCE is the worst and that NE cake walked to all their division titles. 

[ChazStandard]

The worst thing that could have happened?

Just be grateful the Patriots didn't end up in the AFCS: 

Brady vs AFCS (incl play-offs):  37 - 7 (0.841)

1013/1524 - 66.47% - 11617yds - 97TDs - 28INTs - 102.8 passer rating

Against non-Colts teams:  23 - 3 (0.885)

624/944 - 66.10% - 7197yds - 62TDs - 10INTs - 106.41 passer rating