Patriots Extend Tom Brady for 2 years, $70M

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah, I don't buy it at all. If the Jets, Dolphins or Bills traded places with the Browns they would win less and the Browns would win more simply because the Ravens/Steelers/Bengals have been better than the Patriots and any two of the other three collectively.

Yes, the Patriots are the cream of the crop and close the gap but I'd take the Bengals over any of the other three the last 10 years and the Bengals have been the third best in the division.

The thing about this statement is that it throws away the seasons that some of the teams have had, just because they were not consistent. For instance, the Ravens/Steelers have a been a pretty consistent duo making the playoffs (or at least competing for a WC spot) with the Bengals mixed in. 

In the AFCE, you have years like the early 2000s Jets, 08 Dolphins, early-Rex Ryan Jets, Tyrod Bills, angry-Ajayi Dolphins, 10-6 Jets missing the playoffs, etc. No, the teams aren’t consistent, but there’s usually a decent-to-good second place team in most seasons. The statistics back that up. 

In the last two decades or so, the AFCE has a better record (excluding all division winners) than any other division. In fact, the AFCE has a higher win% w/o NE than the AFCN has w/o Pittsburgh (2000-2018). 

People can disagree as they please, but the actual W/L records show a total exaggeration of the quality of the AFCE. No, there hasn’t been great QBs and no, there hasn’t been great or consistent coaches. But when it comes to actually winning football games, the AFCE hasn’t been the worst or even close to it in the Pats Dynasty time frame.

[The Hitch]

On 8/6/2019 at 1:44 PM, ChazStandard said:

I get tired of posting this but:

Brady vs AFCE: 81-21 (.794)

Brady vs others: 126-41 (.754)

Bearing in mind that always playing a 1st place schedule means Patriots inter-conference games are regularly against play-off teams, the difference is actually negligible.

EDIT: That's 3.6 losses per year for 17 years. Only 1.2 division losses a season. Which is insane.

1 For me this isn't a Brady stat but a Pats stat, but i know Im always against the majority on this forum with the teams over  qbs opinion

2 Isn't that .4 difference, also  the difference between a first round bye or a home seed one or two years?
Not always. Some years, Pats were just the best.  

 but eg, this year, 2nd seed over Houston because the Texans game was in Foxborough (though I guess I can imagine Pats could have beaten them in Houston, but less likely) . Texans still got to the same record, despite playing a much stronger division. Anything other than the weakest division in football and do the Pats still get that 11-5 record? Even a mildly easier division for Houston could have gotten them to one above. Or the two best teams not being in the same division thereby giving one of them a 5th seed.

No bye for Pats, would this year I think have killed the Pats. 

That weak division has helped in at least 1 or 2 of those Sb's. Having a AFC West like division, I think Pats might have won just 1 SB this decade. I'd still see them as best team of the decade, but if all you count is SB's, the luck of the division does play a big role in that. 

 

[Thomas5737]

7 hours ago, N4L said:

No, technically he IS under contract for next year, until the deal voids next off-season.

The deal voids the last day of the 2019 league year.

 

7 hours ago, N4L said:

Maybe it 'automatically' voids unless both parties don't want it to

Automatically means automatically, I don't think that means team/player option.

 

7 hours ago, N4L said:

Third of all, this is literally only done with 2 players in the league. Both are cornerstone, first ballot HOF, franchise players in their 40s. I'll say it again in case you don't understand - it's better to have the deal automatically void and the player retire than to have to cut the guy to have him retire. Because technically, if you retire before your contract is up, you owe the team a pro-rated portion of your signing bonus. SO if the team gave Brady the same contract without making it void next year, then he either retires and returns money, or they cut him. Do you see why that is a bad look for everyone involved? it would surely make the team look like jerks to the general public and complicates a career decision unnecessarily

Or, this is crazy I know, don't give him an extension and let his contract play out. Then if he wants to keep playing sign him to a one year deal. If he doesn't then he retires and no one looks bad at all.

[Thomas5737]

7 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

The thing about this statement is that it throws away the seasons that some of the teams have had, just because they were not consistent. For instance, the Ravens/Steelers have a been a pretty consistent duo making the playoffs (or at least competing for a WC spot) with the Bengals mixed in. 

In the AFCE, you have years like the early 2000s Jets, 08 Dolphins, early-Rex Ryan Jets, Tyrod Bills, angry-Ajayi Dolphins, 10-6 Jets missing the playoffs, etc. No, the teams aren’t consistent, but there’s usually a decent-to-good second place team in most seasons. The statistics back that up. 

In the last two decades or so, the AFCE has a better record (excluding all division winners) than any other division. In fact, the AFCE has a higher win% w/o NE than the AFCN has w/o Pittsburgh (2000-2018). 

People can disagree as they please, but the actual W/L records show a total exaggeration of the quality of the AFCE. No, there hasn’t been great QBs and no, there hasn’t been great or consistent coaches. But when it comes to actually winning football games, the AFCE hasn’t been the worst or even close to it in the Pats Dynasty time frame.

Since 2010 in non-division games the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens are all top 10. The Patriots are overwhelmingly #1. The Browns are last. The Dolphins, Bills and Jets are all bottom 13 with losing records. Since 2003 the Pats are #1, the Steelers #2, Ravens #4, Bengals #17, Jets #20, Dolphins #22, Buffalo #24 and the Browns #32.

Patriots have the best team obviously, Browns are clearly last but The Bengals have been better than everyone in the AFCE except the Patriots and worse than anyone in the AFCN except the Browns.

[ChazStandard]

4 hours ago, The Hitch said:

1 For me this isn't a Brady stat but a Pats stat, but i know Im always against the majority on this forum with the teams over  qbs opinion

2 Isn't that .4 difference, also  the difference between a first round bye or a home seed one or two years?
Not always. Some years, Pats were just the best.  

 but eg, this year, 2nd seed over Houston because the Texans game was in Foxborough (though I guess I can imagine Pats could have beaten them in Houston, but less likely) . Texans still got to the same record, despite playing a much stronger division. Anything other than the weakest division in football and do the Pats still get that 11-5 record? Even a mildly easier division for Houston could have gotten them to one above. Or the two best teams not being in the same division thereby giving one of them a 5th seed.

No bye for Pats, would this year I think have killed the Pats. 

That weak division has helped in at least 1 or 2 of those Sb's. Having a AFC West like division, I think Pats might have won just 1 SB this decade. I'd still see them as best team of the decade, but if all you count is SB's, the luck of the division does play a big role in that. 

 

1. Obvisouly, yes, it's a Patriots stat, I just refer to it as Brady to show i'm not including '08 or weeks 1-4 of 2016.

2. It's not a .4 difference, it's a 0.04 difference - as in less than 2/3rds of a game. It's small enough to, over the time, be accuonted for be totally random factors.

It's actually funny you mention the difference between homefield adv. Miami's (much) better than average record against NE (accounting for almost 1/5th of their losses) has cost NE a LOT over the years. Late season losses to the Dolphins cost the Patriots seeding in 04, 06, 09, 13, 15 and 18. Five of those were the difference between being the 1 seed and the 2 seed. In 06, 13 and 15 that almost certainly cost them trips to the SB. 

You guys should thank your lucky stars the Pats play in Miami every year. Otherwise you could be looking at 10 rings for the Pats.

[Rockice_8]

20 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Pats haven't dominated the Ravens.

There were 5 teams in the NFL that allowed 100 more points than they scored last year, three of those teams are in the AFCE. The Browns don't get to play a combination of the Bills/Dolphins/Jets twice every year or they would have fared better the last decade than facing the Bengals/Ravens/Steelers twice every year. If you can't accept that as fact then I don't think there is a point.

3-9 vs NE.  Pretty much dominated.

You are talking about 1 season in which the Jets and Bills both started green rookie QB's building for the future.  I am talking about Brady's career here.

Fact is AFCE is middle of the pack as a division so this notion that it is the worst division in football is a fallacy.

Jets, MIA, BUF all have had success outside the division as to not be the worst division as some are proclaiming.  Go look at the link I posted earlier it's pretty clear the AFCE is not the worst division in football over the past 20 years.

 

[Rockice_8]

11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Yeah, I don't buy it at all. If the Jets, Dolphins or Bills traded places with the Browns they would win less and the Browns would win more simply because the Ravens/Steelers/Bengals have been better than the Patriots and any two of the other three collectively.

Yes, the Patriots are the cream of the crop and close the gap but I'd take the Bengals over any of the other three the last 10 years and the Bengals have been the third best in the division.

Two ludicrous statements right there.  1st one you can't say with any certainly at all.  

And secondly the Jets have made 2 AFC championship games over the past decade and Cincy has 0 playoff wins.  Jets actually wiped Cincy from the playoffs both times if I remember correctly but yeah Cincy had a better decade 

[Rockice_8]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Since 2010 in non-division games the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens are all top 10. The Patriots are overwhelmingly #1. The Browns are last. The Dolphins, Bills and Jets are all bottom 13 with losing records. Since 2003 the Pats are #1, the Steelers #2, Ravens #4, Bengals #17, Jets #20, Dolphins #22, Buffalo #24 and the Browns #32.

Patriots have the best team obviously, Browns are clearly last but The Bengals have been better than everyone in the AFCE except the Patriots and worse than anyone in the AFCN except the Browns.

This isn't about the AFCE vs AFCN.

It was two simple statements both true.  NE has owned everyone in the AFCN just as they have everyone in the AFCE.

Second statement, the AFCE isn't the worst division in the sport as someone else claimed.

That's how this all started not comparing the AFCE to the AFCN as a whole.

And the slight difference in regular season wins is negated by the Jets actually doing something in the playoffs so no Cincy has not been better then Jets since 2003 with their 0 playoff wins this century.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Rockice_8

[Soko]

4 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Since 2010 in non-division games the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens are all top 10. The Patriots are overwhelmingly #1. The Browns are last. The Dolphins, Bills and Jets are all bottom 13 with losing records. Since 2003 the Pats are #1, the Steelers #2, Ravens #4, Bengals #17, Jets #20, Dolphins #22, Buffalo #24 and the Browns #32.

Patriots have the best team obviously, Browns are clearly last but The Bengals have been better than everyone in the AFCE except the Patriots and worse than anyone in the AFCN except the Browns.

2010 is a convenient cut-off. 

But again, you’re overlooking individual seasons for consistency. Yeah, the AFCN has largely been more consistent. But the AFCE still puts out WC teams, they just happen to be sporadic. The Bills most recently, the Dolphins the season prior, Jets missing at 10-6, 08 Dolphins, back-to-back AFCCG Jets, etc. 

And NE has about the same win % vs the AFCN teams. It’s pretty fruitless to try and debate when the win %s since 2000 are what they are.

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

2010 is a convenient cut-off. 

But again, you’re overlooking individual seasons for consistency. Yeah, the AFCN has largely been more consistent. But the AFCE still puts out WC teams, they just happen to be sporadic. The Bills most recently, the Dolphins the season prior, Jets missing at 10-6, 08 Dolphins, back-to-back AFCCG Jets, etc. 

And NE has about the same win % vs the AFCN teams. It’s pretty fruitless to try and debate when the win %s since 2000 are what they are.

The 2010 cutoff was because it is this decade. The 2003 cutoff is because that was as far back as the stats went. The Browns won 10 games in 2007, still overall they have been crappy. Overall the other three teams in the AFCE have been bad besides when the Jets made their run. Bengals lose all of their playoff games but they did go to 5 straight and 6 of 7. That is more consistency than anyone in the east.

I don't know why I even joined the conversation but if you guys think that the Jets/Dolphins/Bills have been just as good as the Bengals/Steelers/Ravens over the Patriot's run then so be it. I don't like those teams anyway.

[Soko]

12 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

The 2010 cutoff was because it is this decade. The 2003 cutoff is because that was as far back as the stats went. The Browns won 10 games in 2007, still overall they have been crappy. Overall the other three teams in the AFCE have been bad besides when the Jets made their run. Bengals lose all of their playoff games but they did go to 5 straight and 6 of 7. That is more consistency than anyone in the east.

I don't know why I even joined the conversation but if you guys think that the Jets/Dolphins/Bills have been just as good as the Bengals/Steelers/Ravens over the Patriot's run then so be it. I don't like those teams anyway.

I don’t think they’ve been better. I think the AFCE has far from the worst division and that if NE got switched with the Steelers/Ravens, there would be little (if any) drop off in their W/L. The numbers support that. 

Busy comparing teams when I’m comparing divisions. If the Jets/Dolphins/Bills make WC, but suck the years that they don’t, that still counts. Just because the competition doesn’t come from the same team or two, doesn’t mean there isn’t ever any at all.

[childofpudding]

3 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

The 2010 cutoff was because it is this decade. The 2003 cutoff is because that was as far back as the stats went. The Browns won 10 games in 2007, still overall they have been crappy. Overall the other three teams in the AFCE have been bad besides when the Jets made their run. Bengals lose all of their playoff games but they did go to 5 straight and 6 of 7. That is more consistency than anyone in the east.

I don't know why I even joined the conversation but if you guys think that the Jets/Dolphins/Bills have been just as good as the Bengals/Steelers/Ravens over the Patriot's run then so be it. I don't like those teams anyway.

I am not sure that is the correct argument, and I am not sure people are making that argument. It would be better to compare the three worst teams in each division, so it would be Jets/Dolphins/Bills vs. the Ravens/Bengals/Browns. Given how historically bad the Browns have been in the last two decades, and given how the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in two decades, the comparison is fairly close. I'd personally pick the Ravens/Bengals/Browns, but it's close.

[Thomas5737]

14 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

I am not sure that is the correct argument, and I am not sure people are making that argument. It would be better to compare the three worst teams in each division, so it would be Jets/Dolphins/Bills vs. the Ravens/Bengals/Browns. Given how historically bad the Browns have been in the last two decades, and given how the Bengals haven't won a playoff game in two decades, the comparison is fairly close. I'd personally pick the Ravens/Bengals/Browns, but it's close.

Well regular season and playoffs are separated otherwise the argument that the Patriots own the Ravens would be invalid.

The Browns have really brought down the division statistically since '99 and if you weight heavily the best and worst teams from the AFCE and AFCN then I get the argument that the AFCE is superior especially when you include titles. The argument being made that the AFCE minus the Patriots is better than the AFCN minus any team, lets say the Steelers I just can't get on board with even though the Browns have been the worst team in the NFL in that time. I'd still rather face the Bills, Jets and Dolphins twice every year than the Ravens, Bengals and Browns even though the Browns are almost two sure wins.

If the Jets success from 09/10 is still fresh in your mind and the Bengals never winning in the playoffs is the only consideration you make about them then I can see taking them over the Bengals even though they have one winning season and no playoff appearances since their last championship game (8 seasons) while the Bengals have 5 and 5. Otherwise I don't think there is even an argument that the 2nd best team in the AFCE is as good as the 3rd best team in the AFCN.

Historically I mean. The best team in the AFCN now is going the be the Browns and they are going to complete what the Patriots couldn't in 2007.

[The Hitch]

15 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

1. Obvisouly, yes, it's a Patriots stat, I just refer to it as Brady to show i'm not including '08 or weeks 1-4 of 2016.

2. It's not a .4 difference, it's a 0.04 difference - as in less than 2/3rds of a game. It's small enough to, over the time, be accuonted for be totally random factors.

It's actually funny you mention the difference between homefield adv. Miami's (much) better than average record against NE (accounting for almost 1/5th of their losses) has cost NE a LOT over the years. Late season losses to the Dolphins cost the Patriots seeding in 04, 06, 09, 13, 15 and 18. Five of those were the difference between being the 1 seed and the 2 seed. In 06, 13 and 15 that almost certainly cost them trips to the SB. 

You guys should thank your lucky stars the Pats play in Miami every year. Otherwise you could be looking at 10 rings for the Pats.

 Well yeah if the Pats didn't play in Miami then their division would have been easier.  But its already a very  favorable situation don't you agree, even with one game a year in Miami?

Looking at this decade, where the Pats have won 3 super bowls, made 5 and been by far the best team, here is the total number of wildcards per division - to see roughly what the second best team in the division has been like over the decade: 

Wildcards this decade: 
Afc east - 3
North - 5
South- 3
West - 5

NFC East- 2
North -6
South-5
West- 5

AFC South is the same and NFC East is weaker. Both have also been weak divisions in general . The others have imo clearly been worlds better than the AFC East. 

And the quality of these 2nd place teams?

In the AFC East, Jets made the playoffs in 2010/11, a decent Dolphins team in 2016/17  and the Bills scraped through in 2017/18. None of those were championship caliber teams, and in 2 cases it was possibly the worst team in the playoffs that year.  And those are the best opponents the Pats faced all decade. In the other years it was even more pathetic. 

NFC East has been similarly bad, the first team has often been crap in itself so whoever was the second team was usually even worse, though I do recall they had one good year with strong-ish 2nd and 3rd teams.  AFC South was the worst division in football for much of the decade but last few years has mustered some good competition. 

By contrast in the AFC, both the North and the West have regularly had 2 extremely strong teams, at times 3.  Not just the scrape the playoffs and celebrate like its a championship-  like the AFC East and NFC East wildcard teams, but stone cold contenders often who could have had 1 seed themselves if in a different division. 

Same goes for the NFC South. 1 or 2 bad years but in between that years with 2 or occasionally 3 top contenders. 

NFC West,  has been even stronger. If we substitute the Hawks and the Pats (Hawks were sort of the Patslite of the NFC for much of the decade) you have almost every year either a strong SF, Arizona or Rams and a few years when the 3rd best team of that division was better than the second in the AFC East. 
NFC North is similar and has had the most wildcards. If we substitute the  Packers and the Pats (and I know the Packers have not  been anywhere near as good over the decade but just for the sake of a comparison) in the NFC North the  Pats would have still had an easy ride a few years, but other years much stronger opposition. 

So yeah if the Pats didn't have to play one game in Miami they would have had by far the easiest division by far this decade. Instead they have one of the weakest divisions together with two other crap ones. Whereas every year, almost all the other superbowl contenders this decade, have had to fight it much harder.

How I would ask the question is, how many teams in the NFL would you look at over the last decade and say - I wish the Pats were playing those two games a year instead? Surely not a single team from the ACF North, West, or NFC South, North or West fits the bill. The Colts maybe? Or perhaps the Eagles. And its debatable. 

[Rockice_8]

What did I start here lol.

Not sure how this evolved to AFCE vs AFCN 

It was a simple statement that NE owned the AFCN just as much as they owned the AFCE over Brady's run and there's no need to argue it because it's fact.

The other argument was about the AFCE being the worst division in football as to why NE keeps dominating which is also not true.  

Not sure how that morphed into comparing the past decade of regular season wins of PIT/BAL/CIN to NYJ/BUF/MIA.