Mahomes will surpass Brady as the Goat. True or False?

[MWil23]

There's so much wrong with this title.

First of all, Mahomes already is >>>>>>> Brady.

Second of all, Brady isn't the GOAT.

[Hunter2_1]

26 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

There's so much wrong with these upcoming two sentences

First of all, Mahomes already is >>>>>>> Brady.

Second of all, Brady isn't the GOAT.

FIFY  

[Dome]

I don’t think he’ll pass Brady, but I think he’ll be the “Brady” of this generation, or the closest anyone can be.

[MWil23]

33 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

FIFY  

(It was a joke)

[Chiefs_5627]

I don't care if PMii is the goat, the horse or any other farm animal. Dude just brought us our first chip in 50 years with the ability, motivation and desire to keep us in the hunt for more, I'm good with that.

Brady is 43 and still going, it's impossible, without a time machine, to know if PMii even plays to 40. Brady has had an unparalleled/ridiculous amount of success that I don't think we'll ever see again, so I'm just gonna enjoy the ride for what it is.

[Warhorse]

On 5/9/2020 at 8:27 AM, lancerman said:

This board used to say the same thing about Rodgers 5 seasons ago. Sorry this is another example of football fans being egregiously reactionary and recency biased. In fact it’s embarrassing. 

There are about 10 QB's that truly stand out in the NFL history books. Any fan can point to one as being the best, but it will be about a certain aspect of the position. For instance, if you take Brady and put him in the era of Unitas, with the same nutrition, training, and coaching, he would like get rolled over bad. In the same reasoning, you put Unitas in today's game and he would be lost, getting run over like a diesel combine by hybrid, unpredictable defenses and schemes. For clarity, it is impossible to compare era's.

I never saw Sammy Baugh play, but I have read enough by the experts who did see him, to realize how special he was. One of my top ten, who never gets mentioned in these discussions, is Warren Moon. Saying that his numbers in the CFL don't count, is as ludicrous as trying to compare the numbers between eras that are 30-50 years apart. I do know that Warren did his thing, in two different countries, and in two different games, and was one hell of a QB. Peyton was the best I have ever watched when it came to doing his thing on his own. He was the coach on the field. 

How is it that the number of rings is the deciding factor? Would that not also indicate that Terry Bradshaw is a faaaarrr better QB that Dan Marino? See how silly that is? In the end, I saw premature debates like this coming almost 30 years ago.(Yes, I'm old) I was watching a T-ball game...or maybe it was little league. Every kid was getting their own baseball cards showing them as a winner after the season. I turned to my wife and said, 'This is not good". She asked why, and I pointed to them developing the need for recognition, even instant recognition as they grow as a person. I'm not going to delve deep into this, but...through social media, the younger generation needs recognition so profoundly, that this debate not only exists years before a similar discussion would have happened 40 years ago, but folks really think this is a legitimate comparison. Hell, as a Colts fan, I embarrassingly watched some Colt fans do this with Luck. See how that turned out?

My favorite example of younger fans going overboard, was at a CFB game few years back. The RB broke free from about the 18 yard line and looked to have a clear path to a TD. Guy behind me yelled "Heisman, baby!" However, the FS came over from the opposite side of the field and punched the ball out. The same guy immediately changed his yell to "F^^^^^ loser!" All in the same play. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Warhorse

[Zalixar]

14 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Alright, so we’re acknowledging what you’re bringing to the table is theories and what I brought was actual W/L %, right? 

It is a theory that teams prep/focus more on winning vs the teams/top teams in their division?  Interesting.  I guess we will never know the truth on that matter if we don't know it by now.  One of the mysteries of the universe.

I think we have WAY different versions of what we think is success or not success for teams in division or what is good/bad.

Is everything based off winning %? I mean individually, the winning % is very low.   So let's see where we are coming from.

Scenario A (and this is a pretty generous Scenario A, I could make it all 6-10 seasons and still be the same):  If I were to say the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets all went 8-8 every season except 3 for 20 years and changed out their team every 2-3 years.  Not enough to ever challenge everything, could never really beat the Patriots, but that's actually pretty impressive record overall to keep.  Those 3 seasons for each team they went a combination of 9-7 and 10-6 (with 5 years apart completely different team so it was not consecutive and was done with completely different player makeup for each team).  They went to the playoffs as a WC each of those times.  Each playoff trip no AFCE team scored more than 3 points and got completely routed. 

Their win % is honestly, amazing.  What a superb division.  Yeah, I think in that scenario you could make a case for a decent division.  Although you can see that they never really had the "it" factor and when they had any opportunity they were quickly shown the door.  Now of course real life wasn't even close to this scenario.  But just for scenario purposes.

Scenario B:  Now take each of the 3 teams for 20 years and had 15(or 16) 0-16 seasons and 4 (or 5) (teams alternating) consecutive or close to consecutive great seasons - with maybe 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 wins.  Maybe even nabbing the division once or twice and WC once or twice (approximately same amount of playoff entries as first scenario).  They got a pretty good QB/Coach and a decent team to make a run and improved every season, you can see they were doing something.  Let's say every time they made it to the 2nd round, and even the championship a couple times but never reached the SB.

Well, I'm gunna say if you look at it at a whole, their win % is absolute **** compared to scenario A.  But I will favor scenario B because each team had a real chance, they had a real challenge, and they had some consistency.

Would you favor Scenario A as being better or Scenario B?  If you say Scenario A then we are talking about way different things and on way different wavelengths is all.  Even if 3 of the teams went 0-16 for 75% of the 2 decades, they had a time they could challenge the Patriots.

And it never happened in the AFCE with any team (but almost, sorta, very close, but not quite with the Jets) but it does happen (for the most part as I have said) with 3 or 4 teams in every other division.  If the division doesn't have 3 or 4, it certainly has at least 2 (at some point) except the AFCE which really only has the Pats.

The teams just never even matched up to Scenario A at all nor did they fulfill Scenario B at all either

 

Quote

It’s difficult to tell, yet you seem content with assuming it’s the HFA or the bye. Interesting.

Are you assuming that HFA or the Bye isn't that big of an advantage?  After all, they are playing the best teams that made it to elimination contention.  I am close to pretty 50/50 on a team strength AND the extra advantage as being factors.  Maybe 60/40, it really depends on the matchup.  It is any given Sunday though.  Extra rest, game planning, preparation included in that.  I think a (both playoff teams) "lesser team" could beat a "better team" with home field and an extra bye with a pretty good chance .  If two teams let's say were "equal" had the same record, just Team A happens to get 2nd seed and Team B got the 3rd seed by a fraction of strength of schedule.  Team B wins and travels to Team A, if "they are equal," who has the advantage?  Who is gunna be favored 99% of the time?  I mean  I'm going out on a limb here, but I am going to say Team A.

Quote

Okay, and again, not applying things across the board. Would the Pats not then be game planning for those teams even more as well? It’s a wash, but you’re trying to apply a buff to the underdogs only.

That is a fair point, but far from a wash.  Divisional games are always something else.  Even Patriots have lost to teams in the AFCE, it happens.  They just were never consistently good to make anything out of it.  Imagine if those teams were better.  Even ONE more loss could throw the Patriots to the 3rd seed.  Or if another team gets thrown into the AFCE, they can capitalize on ONE more win and take the 2nd seed regardless of what the Pats do (in another division example).  It's not saying Pats won't be good, but one game can make a difference.  Just a better chance of better teams winning.  I know, I am going out on a limb for that one and that is all theoretical that better teams have a better chance of winning than worse teams.  It's not saying that Patriots are all of a sudden not going to go the playoffs or be a worse team.  Cream always rises.  It just matters how many hits they take along the way.

Quote

Who said those teams were good? Remember the discussion at hand. 

For the record, the Bills and Dolphins combined (that means nearly 40 seasons) have hit your hypothetical example of 5 wins or less only 5 times. You’re calling them trash and amongst the worst teams in the league, but all that’s happening is you’re mushing together all non-playoff teams like they’re all equals. Being middle of the pack is a step above being truly horrible.

That’s because they’re getting whipped by New England twice a season, lol. If you look at the AFCE’s non-division win %, it’s actually the highest. I pointed that out already and you dismissed it as not-relevant since it isn’t the playoffs, but you’re comfortable posting an even more tainted stat? Interesting.

I mean, I get trying to take New England out of the equation for everyone but the division winner and seeing the division rankings.  But that kind of eliminates my whole point that teams rotate and fluctuate greatness/mediocrity/division winners.  That all (or most) teams challenge the division title and playoff runs for at least HFA for the first game.  AFCE is the only division that works like that, otherwise the 3 teams left for ranks is rotated in and out for every division.  It's stagnant for the AFCE (links to scenario B above) so those teams with god awful seasons get put into that win % but then when they rebound to division lead and do something they don't get counted. 

See what I mean?  For scenario purposes, Tampa Bay goes 0-16 for 6 seasons, so it gets counted as terrible win % so the AFCE would do better than them.  But lets just say TB goes 16-0 for the next 3 seasons and does really well in playoffs.  Well, they just get eliminated from that win % because we counted when they did terrible but didn't count when they did well.  The point is that that stat can really only work for the AFCE because it's the same teams being counted(B,J,D)/not counted(P).  It is untrue for other divisions and coincides with the AFCE just falls flat while other teams cycle and have more potential at one points (or multiple) or another.  So it's hard to compare unlike things. 

Again, this can reference Scenario A/B.   In the statistic of win % outside of division not counting division leader, you eliminate any trace of Scenario B ever happening and therefore, by the numbers, AFCE is pretty good comparatively.

Quote

EDIT: It’s late, but is my math right? Those teams each have 144 some odd games in that span of 2000-2018? There should be more than that. I’m guessing it’s supposed to be 2000-2008? 

Highest win % outside the division, for the East*

The issue is you’re comfortable going with “well if you changed NE’s division and gave them an extra game to work with the postseason, you never know, they could lose”. But you are then unwilling to acknowledge “well if you took NE out of the division and some of these AFCE teams had a bye, you never know, they could go further.” Both are absolutely conjecture and if you’re putting weight into HFA/bye weeks, then you need to either say both or neither. But you aren’t.

I agree that merely making the playoffs doesn’t mean you’re contending for a Sb. But like I said above, If we’re applying hypotheticals, we have to do it across the board. 

It was late as well and didn't check the number of games.  It was a misread from 2010.  So since Jets, Dolphins were bottom 11, and Bills were barely top 11 for this one year and the Bills were already the worst of the 3, I don't think the standings change too much.  So 3 out of the bottom 10 in the past decade.  Would it be much different for the previous decade?  Probably not if I had to guess, but I would like to see the numbers (that wouldn't take me awhile to figure out).  So atm, have to go on past decade, they were the only division with 3 in the bottom wins.

Note the previous section on taking outside the division.  It favors the East since it's the same teams over and over while discounting teams that rise/fall.  Again, which is the whole point of this.  The Pats win the division every year (essentially) and doesn't happen in any other division.  So wouldn't mean something if the same 3 teams are always the bottom 3 of the division?  Coupled with checking their actual success (like none?) for 2 decades? Yes, it means the Patriots are good and the other teams are bad (or decent at times I will go with) but not good.

If the teams were good they could still make some noise in the playoffs.  It's not impossible to win WC games, it's just difficult.  Could the Bills attend more than 2 times?  Could they score more than 3 points? Once? Nice!    Could the Dolphins score more than 3 points in their couple trips?  Once?  Nice!

It sucks, I actually like the Bills and Dolphins (have no feelings one way or another with Jets).

Quote

And honestly, i didn’t think the Giants were SB contenders either of the years that they won it. Or the 15’ Broncos. So yeah, we can look at the Bills team this year and say definitively that they weren’t contending but only because they didn’t win. But as you know, being right about a prediction doesn’t mean you knew your prediction would come to fruition - just that it did.

Broncos had been pretty solid for a a few years with Manning (even though he declined a bit) and that defense.  Still a good team.  No question of their contender status.  Weird you wouldn't have thought they were contending.  I did explicitly say the 2019 Bills had something and good outlook (hopefully) even though they didn't make it past the first round.  See if they strung a couple of those together, even with a first round exit, THAT would be something.

Coughlin entered the scene when the Giants were in the playoffs a number of times. In the 7 years from closest Playoff berth and their last one before everything went downhill, they didn't get high seeding most of the time so it was difficult for them to make the run,  I think that is why it's as revered, especially at beating the Patriots (including the amazing 07 Pats).

True, possibly nothing special on the surface, but they were in the playoffs consistently and had a good defense.  Manning just stepped up.  But it wasn't like they were 1 hit wonders during that scene, they had a pretty good set up.  Just took a bit to get it together.

Quote

Hard to be stable when you can’t win the division. 

Don’t even necessarily disagree with that. Just have to make sure we’re consistent if we’re making hypotheticals. 

For discussion’s sake, I will say the last couple NE WC teams were definitely not high quality. The 09 team was trying it’s hardest to just be 07 again, but the team aged. The defense caved in on itself and the offense wasn’t nearly as potent with an older Moss (still very good player, but not the force he was), a worse OL, and Brady who was still not confident in his leg. Then Bernard Pollard strikes again at the end of the season, destroying Wes Welker, and essentially ending any chance the Patriots had in their matchup vs Baltimore. Not that Welker would’ve helped stop Ray Rice flattening the defense, but it could’ve given the offense more juice to try and keep up. They couldn’t. 

2019’s team had the luxury of a stellar defense, but one that was taken advantage of against the better teams that they played. They were never great against the run (but elite against the pass), which meant Henry (and Jackson in Baltimore) were awful matchups. Offensively they couldn’t do much, especially without competent fullbacks to block for Sony, unreliable offensive tackles, a crippled Edelman who could barely lift an arm over his shoulder, an ankle sprained Sanu, rookie who missed camp Harry, torn Achilles Watson, and...Phillip Dorsett. 

Ten years apart, I can confidently say that myself and the Pats fans I’ve seen had less confident in these groups going in than say 2014, 2016, or 2007 (even though...you know...). 

Yes, but the teams couldn't even stay in the WC scene or do anything relevant scene to keep coaches/QB.  They just never landed good ones (except Pennington, oh what could have been).  Now we have Allen, Donald, and Tua....just as Brady exits.  Who knows if they will do anything though.  Bills have a solid defense but have a lot of potential.  It took 20 years.

Quote

Looking at the win % but including division opponents inherently hurts them for being dominated by the Pats. Other teams also got dominated by the Pats but didn’t have to play them twice a year. It’s flawed. The AFCE’s win % excluding division rivals shows that they performed better than other divisions. So which team had the best %? The AFCE. 

It does hurt being in the same division as the Pats because they couldn't overtake them, but the Pats didn't always sweep the division.  Either way, it's 2 games if we wanted to crown Pats winning every division game for each team.  The teams could make it elsewhere and still succeed without beating the Pats (except maybe come playoff time).  They just couldn't make it to the 2nd round.  Except the Jets, who did manage to beat the Pats.  So short lived.

If you want to compare the low win % teams around the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins, all those other teams also have to play good teams in their own division - with records as good as the Patriots.  Often 2 or 3 other teams (See the Browns for example vs Steelers/Ravens/Bengals even) so it makes it insanely tough for them (coupled with being a bad team).  The win % for the AFCE actually helps the rest of the teams not the Patriots, because they just have the Patriots.  What about TB?  Carolina, New Orleans, and Atlanta?  Who have been mostly consistently good for two decades?  Yikes.   That is a definite AFCE benefit to only have the Patriots run through the division.  Unfortunately for them it was just for the entire 20 years.  Most teams may only have 5 or 10 or 15 for dominance.

Again, that % has been rounded before previously.  That statistic tells me the bottom 3 teams are always the bottom 3 teams and that only happens in the AFCE.  See previous TB scenario.

Quote

You know another team that didn’t have one in almost 20 years? The Browns. And another team that can’t buy a playoff win? The Bengals. And the Lions. Or another team that wasn’t playoff relevant since Brady was an NFL baby? The Raiders. This is am ignoring that these teams are essentially accomplishing what they are without an absolute juggernaut like NE in their division. So yeah, some of these teams are getting in with 7-9 or 7-8-1 every now and again. And some of them are getting your highly esteemed HFA and buying a win once a decade. But that’s because they aren’t being back seated by a flat out superior team. You’re admitting that NE is perhaps the greatest dynasty we’ve seen, but then expecting the division to flesh out as if it had a chance to win every now and again like most of the others. 

Yep, I mentioned the Browns several times as one of those teams.  Bengals are interesting.  Consistently great in the regular season but couldn't cut it in the post season AT ALL.  So yes, they would get a lot of points for being great, but deducted point for not ever doing anything (not even once!).  So since they have great win %, would you say they are successful than most of the AFCE teams, especially with Raven and Steelers in the division?  I would lean towards they weren't successful and they did really well during the regular season (they are unique in this, as extremely successful, but not).  Browns are 1 team that is bad.  Would you say Bengals were not a threat? 

I will rethrow this in:

Quote

And honestly, i didn’t think the Giants were SB contenders either of the years that they won it. Or the 15’ Broncos. So yeah, we can look at the Bills team this year and say definitively that they weren’t contending but only because they didn’t win. But as you know, being right about a prediction doesn’t mean you knew your prediction would come to fruition - just that it did.

So, are you saying the Bengals are not contenders because they didn't win playoff games or are they contenders cause they consistently have a great record and make the playoffs and have a shot?

Either way it's either 1 or maybe 2 teams in that division, if you want to count the Bengals as irrelevant as I have with the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets.

Lions.  Yep, they have been pretty awful.  Had a couple years of decent runs.  Every other team had some pretty good success for awhile at some point.  So only 1 team in that division.

Raiders have been pretty awful.  Again, that's 1 team in that division that has done pretty much nothing.

What do they all have in common with these teams and the divisions they are in?  Not having 3 teams that have been irrelevant that's for sure. 

 

 

Quote

What does that have to do with anything regarding the Pats or the AFCE? 

And FWIW, I say this as a massive Adam fan, the guy did miss two field goals to put NE in that position against Carolina. I don’t think he gets shorted credit at all, nor do I think he deserves the credit that Brady/Bill get in regards to the dynasty. Adam put the cherry on top of all those wins, but he wasn’t the force behind them. He was the (all-time, clutch) kicker. Does Seymour receiver the same credit as the QB/HC? Or Bruschi? Or Law? Or McGinest? No, and they shouldn’t. 

Was just an extra discussion is all.

 

I know the main center of your argument is that statistic of win % outside of the division (not counting the division leader).  That really doesn't work how you think it works.  It works to a certain degree, but you have to take the step further. 

Same teams always being in the bottom 3?  If a team had 15 0-16 years and 5 16-0 years (let's say spread out a little bit), they would be pretty damn terrible in win %.  Their win % outside of the division would be insanely marked down as the worst team of any 32 teams and their perfect 16-0 seasons (with let's just say 5 SB's too) wouldn't be counted in that win % (taking out the division leader).  That number would say they sucked.   But in reality, even with those 0-16 seasons, they would be like one of the best teams ever in those 2 decades. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Zalixar

[diamondbull424]

Well Peyton Manning is the best I saw play the position at their peaks. Brady I feel bad the benefit of superior coaching and personnel management. The Colts got two HOF talent players killed behind the OL before they finally decided to fix it.

I see Tom Brady as more of a Bill Russell candidate that won a lot of rings and was really good, but kind of overrated... and you could see the difference between his level of individual talent and what the apex of talent was when peak Aaron Rodgers came onto the scene. Aaron Rodgers is Wilt Chamberlain FWIW because he made us dream of “what might be possible” in the next generation of talents when you combine overwhelming talent with overwhelming desire with a great situation.

Brady benefited from a lot of breaks. He’s had a great ownership, great front office, and coach. Patrick Mahomes (along with maybe a select few other QBs of this generation) feel like they could be the next Lou Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar); a sort of DBZ fusion between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell that could topple the old guard reign of thought.

[Soko]

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

It is a theory that teams prep/focus more on winning vs the teams/top teams in their division?  Interesting.  I guess we will never know the truth on that matter if we don't know it by now.  One of the mysteries of the universe.

In the capacity that they’re playing them twice and thus preparing for another week, sure. But I don’t think New England (or any of the quality teams) treat their division rivals with extra significance - I think the consistently good franchises take every game seriously. It’s the crap teams, that as you say, play teams like NE as if it’s their SB. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

I think we have WAY different versions of what we think is success or not success for teams in division or what is good/bad.

Is everything based off winning %? I mean individually, the winning % is very low.   So let's see where we are coming from.

I don’t look at things so black & white. It’s not you’re good or you’re bad. There are levels. Does going 10-6 and getting bounced in the WC make you as bad as the team that went 2-14? I don’t think so. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Would you favor Scenario A as being better or Scenario B?  If you say Scenario A then we are talking about way different things and on way different wavelengths is all.  Even if 3 of the teams went 0-16 for 75% of the 2 decades, they had a time they could challenge the Patriots.

I think the scenarios pose two different difficulties. Scenario A presents more of what you were arguing - an environment where teams might chip a win or two away from a team like the Patriots and effect their seeding. Given how much you valued HFA/bye weeks, Scenario A would be problematic because shows that it’s never a cakewalk beating those teams. 

Essentially asking which is better: higher win % with no playoff success or lower win % with some playoff success or at least threat potential. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

And it never happened in the AFCE with any team (but almost, sorta, very close, but not quite with the Jets) but it does happen (for the most part as I have said) with 3 or 4 teams in every other division.  If the division doesn't have 3 or 4, it certainly has at least 2 (at some point) except the AFCE which really only has the Pats.

The teams just never even matched up to Scenario A at all nor did they fulfill Scenario B at all either

I mean, find me the division that had three teams go 8-8 for that many years or 2/3 teams with multiple championship runs...

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Are you assuming that HFA or the Bye isn't that big of an advantage?  After all, they are playing the best teams that made it to elimination contention.  I am close to pretty 50/50 on a team strength AND the extra advantage as being factors.  I think a (both playoff teams) "lesser team" could beat a "better team" with home field and an extra bye with a pretty good chance .  If two teams let's say were "equal" had the same record, just Team A happens to get 2nd seed and Team B got the 3rd seed by a fraction of strength of schedule.  Team B wins and travels to Team A, if "they are equal," who has the advantage?  Who is gunna be favored 99% of the time?  I mean  I'm going out on a limb here, but I am going to say Team A.

No, I know it’s an advantage. Just seemed like the team quality aspect was an afterthought in your earlier post. 

And I agree with your conclusion there. But I don’t think comparing the record as a 1 or 2 seed to the WC record is an apples to apples comparison. Even if you took away the HFA/bye, I would assume the higher seeds would generally have a better record than the bottom seed teams. And you could probably say the same if say, we randomized which playoff team got the HFA/bye week and looked at those teams’ record in the divisional round. So if both those are true (or at least, assumed to be true), it’s hard for me to put all the weight in just one or the other.

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

That is a fair point, but far from a wash.  Divisional games are always something else.  Even Patriots have lost to teams in the AFCE, it happens.  They just were never consistently good to make anything out of it.  Imagine if those teams were better.  Even ONE more loss could throw the Patriots to the 3rd seed.  Or if another team gets thrown into the AFCE, they can capitalize on ONE more win and take the 2nd seed regardless of what the Pats do (in another division example).  It's not saying Pats won't be good, but one game can make a difference.  Just a better chance of better teams winning.  I know, I am going out on a limb for that one and that is all theoretical that better teams have a better chance of winning than worse teams.  It's not saying that Patriots are all of a sudden not going to go the playoffs or be a worse team.  Cream always rises.  It just matters how many hits they take along the way.

Who’s to say those teams do any better? Most of them haven’t shown an ability to consistently do damage to NE, even the contenders. You can say divisional opponents would prep better, but then so would the Pats. So yeah, one or two more wins would be a big deal, but there’s not really any evidence that those teams would fare any better if that hypothetical ever came to fruition.

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

I mean, I get trying to take New England out of the equation for everyone but the division winner and seeing the division rankings.  But that kind of eliminates my whole point that teams rotate and fluctuate greatness/mediocrity/division winners.  That all (or most) teams challenge the division title and playoff runs for at least HFA for the first game.  AFCE is the only division that works like that, otherwise the 3 teams left for ranks is rotated in and out for every division.  It's stagnant for the AFCE (links to scenario B above) so those teams with god awful seasons get put into that win % but then when they rebound to division lead and do something they don't get counted. 

See what I mean?  For scenario purposes, Tampa Bay goes 0-16 for 6 seasons, so it gets counted as terrible win % so the AFCE would do better than them.  But lets just say TB goes 16-0 for the next 3 seasons and does really well in playoffs.  Well, they just get eliminated from that win % because we counted when they did terrible but didn't count when they did well.  The point is that that stat can really only work for the AFCE because it's the same teams being counted(B,J,D)/not counted(P).  It is untrue for other divisions and coincides with the AFCE just falls flat while other teams cycle and have more potential at one points (or multiple) or another.  So it's hard to compare unlike things. 

Again, this can reference Scenario A/B.   In the statistic of win % outside of division not counting division leader, you eliminate any trace of Scenario B ever happening and therefore, by the numbers, AFCE is pretty good comparatively.

But then we can reference the other stat. If you take away each division’s winningest franchise over the same period, AFCE comes in T-4th in win %. Doesn’t remedy your very drastic scenario regarding the Buccaneers, but it does even things out with divisions like the AFCN, AFCS, NFCN, and such. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

It was late as well and didn't check the number of games.  It was a misread from 2010.  So since Jets, Dolphins were bottom 11, and Bills were barely top 11 for this one year and the Bills were already the worst of the 3, I don't think the standings change too much.  So 3 out of the bottom 10 in the past decade.  Would it be much different for the previous decade?  Probably not if I had to guess, but I would like to see the numbers (that wouldn't take me awhile to figure out).  So atm, have to go on past decade, they were the only division with 3 in the bottom wins.

Switch the Pats with any team and I imagine their standings would go down quite a bit too. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Note the previous section on taking outside the division.  It favors the East since it's the same teams over and over while discounting teams that rise/fall.  Again, which is the whole point of this.  The Pats win the division every year (essentially) and doesn't happen in any other division.  So wouldn't mean something if the same 3 teams are always the bottom 3 of the division?  Coupled with checking their actual success (like none?) for 2 decades? Yes, it means the Patriots are good and the other teams are bad (or decent at times I will go with) but not good.

If the teams were good they could still make some noise in the playoffs.  It's not impossible to win WC games, it's just difficult.  Could the Bills attend more than 2 times?  Could they score more than 3 points? Once? Nice!    Could the Dolphins score more than 3 points in their couple trips?  Once?  Nice!

It sucks, I actually like the Bills and Dolphins (have no feelings one way or another with Jets).

It still means they’re performing better than any given division’s bottom 3. Not bottom 3 franchises, but bottom 3 of any given season. Like I said earlier, if you’re calling them trash and the division a cakewalk (many divisions might be a “cakewalk” for the Pats) let’s remember that there are levels to everything. 

With context, we see they’re 1st, excluding division winners. With context, we see they’re T-4th, excluding winningest franchises. What else do you need to see?

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Broncos had been pretty solid for a a few years with Manning (even though he declined a bit) and that defense.  Still a good team.  No question of their contender status.  Weird you wouldn't have thought they were contending.  I did explicitly say the 2019 Bills had something and good outlook (hopefully) even though they didn't make it past the first round.  See if they strung a couple of those together, even with a first round exit, THAT would be something.

I thought zombie Peyton would merge with playoff Peyton and they’d lose early in the playoffs. The defense proved GOATier than I thought. 

As for the Bills, who knows how they would’ve fared without the Pats in the division. They lost both games vs NE, and a 12-4 record would’ve been them in contention for the valuable HFA/bye. Let’s make the positive assumptions of NE vacating the East if we’re going to make the negative assumptions against NE themselves.

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Coughlin entered the scene when the Giants were in the playoffs a number of times. In the 7 years from closest Playoff berth and their last one before everything went downhill, they didn't get high seeding most of the time so it was difficult for them to make the run,  I think that is why it's as revered, especially at beating the Patriots (including the amazing 07 Pats).

They’re rightfully revered. They got hot and proved to be the actual buzz saw in both of those postseasons. My point is they weren’t thought of that way until after the fact. So if we’re comparing our judgements of the teams right after Week 17, what separated those underdog teams that won the SB and some of these East teams, reputation wise? That was where I was going. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Yes, but the teams couldn't even stay in the WC scene or do anything relevant scene to keep coaches/QB.  They just never landed good ones (except Pennington, oh what could have been).  Now we have Allen, Donald, and Tua....just as Brady exits.  Who knows if they will do anything though.  Bills have a solid defense but have a lot of potential.  It took 20 years.

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

It does hurt being in the same division as the Pats, but the Pats didn't always sweep the division.  Either way, it's 2 games if we wanted to crown Pats winning every division game.  The teams could make it elsewhere and still succeed without beating the Pats (except maybe come playoff time).  They just couldn't make it to the 2nd round.  Except the Jets, who did manage to beat the Pats.  So short lived.

If you want to compare the low win % teams around the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins, all those other teams also have to play good teams in their own division - with records as good as the Patriots.  Often 2 or 3 other teams (See the Browns for example vs Steelers/Ravens/Bengals even) so it makes it insanely tough for them (coupled with being a bad team).  The win % for the AFCE actually helps the rest of the teams not the Patriots, because they just have the Patriots.  What about TB?  Carolina, New Orleans, and Atlanta?  Who have been mostly consistently good for two decades?  Yikes.   That is a definite AFCE benefit to only have the Patriots run through the division.  Unfortunately for them it was just for the entire 20 years.  Most teams may only have 5 or 10 or 15 for dominance.

Your earlier scenario. Wh

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Again, that % has been rounded before previously.  That statistic tells me the bottom 3 teams are always the bottom 3 teams and that only happens in the AFCE.  See previous TB scenario.

Yep, I mentioned the Browns several times as one of those teams.  Bengals are interesting.  Consistently great in the regular season but couldn't cut it in the post season AT ALL.  So yes, they would get a lot of points for being great, but deducted point for not ever doing anything (not even once!).  So since they have great win %, would you say they are successful than most of the AFCE teams, especially with Raven and Steelers in the division?  I would lean towards they weren't successful and they did really well during the regular season (they are unique in this, as extremely successful, but not).  Browns are 1 team that is bad.  Would you say Bengals were not a threat? 

I think the Bengals were usually in between the “easy first round exit” teams like the Dolphins from a few years ago and the usual Texans teams we see that have potential but typically haven’t been heavy hitters. But you could say any team in the playoffs is a threat, like those Giants teams who had similarly low expectations.

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

I will rethrow this in:

So, are you saying the Bengals are not contenders because they didn't win playoff games or are they contenders cause they consistently have a great record and make the playoffs and have a shot?

I’m on the fence. Any given Sunday, especially in the playoffs. 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Either way it's either 1 or maybe 2 teams in that division, if you want to count the Bengals as irrelevant as I have with the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets.

Lions.  Yep, they have been pretty awful.  Had a couple years of decent runs.  Every other team had some pretty good success for awhile at some point.  So only 1 team in that division.

Raiders have been pretty awful.  Again, that's 1 team in that division that has done pretty much nothing.

What do they all have in common with these teams and the divisions they are in?  Not having 3 teams that have been irrelevant that's for sure. 

You expect them to be relevant under the biggest shadow? Which divisions had two steady contenders? Just the AFCN? 

57 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

I know the main center of your argument is that statistic of win % outside of the division (not counting the division leader).  That really doesn't work how you think it works.  It works to a certain degree, but you have to take the step further. 

Same teams always being in the bottom 3?  If a team had 15 0-16 years and 5 16-0 years (let's say spread out a little bit), they would be pretty damn terrible in win %.  Their win % outside of the division would be insanely marked down as the worst team of any 32 teams and their perfect 16-0 seasons (with let's just say 5 SB's too) wouldn't be counted in that win % (taking out the division leader).  That number would say they sucked.   But in reality, even with those 0-16 seasons, they would be like one of the best teams ever in those 2 decades. 

I think we got off the beaten trail a little bit so let me try and sum up my points.

My argument comes in two fold. First is that the AFCE isn’t the worst division that is often gets sold as. Looking at their win % (with the division winner or winningest franchise caveats) shows that. And if you want to talk about how the Pats would hypothetically fair in another division, it seems only fair we’d hypothetically surmise how the AFCE would do without the best team in the league beating them down. Do some coaches stay a bit longer? Does one or two of them get a bye week, thus allowing them to make a run? Who knows, but we have to entertain both sides or neither. 

Second is that NE would’ve been greatly effected by being in another division. Sure, if you put them with the Steelers, Manning-Colts, and Ravens/Chargers, it’d be an issue. But if you fairly switch them with the best team in the division? I don’t think much changes. Especially if you consider their record vs those teams - and while you can just assume the hypothetical division opponents would be more competitive, that edge would have to be applied both ways. And at that point, we’re just spitballing with nothing to go off of. I’d rather look at the actual records. 

[Jakuvious]

9 hours ago, Chiefs_5627 said:

I don't care if PMii is the goat, the horse or any other farm animal. Dude just brought us our first chip in 50 years with the ability, motivation and desire to keep us in the hunt for more, I'm good with that.

Brady is 43 and still going, it's impossible, without a time machine, to know if PMii even plays to 40. Brady has had an unparalleled/ridiculous amount of success that I don't think we'll ever see again, so I'm just gonna enjoy the ride for what it is.

I don't want him to be the horse. I'd like Eric Berry to be able to come back for games every now and then.

[drew39k]

Mahomes is in a great position right now, but Brady has been a top 5 QB for like 15 years. His track record is just so good that it would be foolish to bet than ANYONE would surpass that legacy this early into their career. So much projection would be required that it isn't really worth making the claim.

[Chiefs_5627]

4 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I don't want him to be the horse. I'd like Eric Berry to be able to come back for games every now and then.

Good point 💡

[TecmoSuperJoe]

17 hours ago, lavar703 said:

How is Andy Reid a fat joke? The guy has 4 losing seasons in 21 years and has been to two super bowls and won one. He's going to be in the Hall Of Fame. 

He's not a fat joke. He's just fat. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by PapaShogun

[Jotun_Fan]

You know I think it's kind of annoying how Tom Brady tries to adopt that "they don't respect us" kind of attitude, but after reading so many posts trying to downplay what the pats have done over the last 20 years it makes we want to agree with him! Yuck!  Hardly anyone outside of New England sports fans even considered Brady an elite QB (inside the top 5 currently in the NFL, some even in the top ten) until he had already won 3 super bowls.  You can go back on the old site here and look at who people thought were their top ten QB's and you'll see names like McNabb, Culpepper, McNair, Green, Romo listed over Brady.  It probably wasn't until the 2007 season that non patriot fans really accepted that he was elite.  Now after 20 years in the league people are just sick of Brady and the Pats winning all the time so I can understand the animosity.  I haven't seen any sort of statistics posted that convince me that the AFCE was any worse than the other divisions over the last 20 years, and the pats have a better record v. other teams in the regular season and something like .791 % in the playoffs.  For me at least, if you want to say the AFCE has been trash then the onus is on you to provide somewhat convincing evidence, of which I've seen none.

GOAT talks are completely subjective as there's no way to separate a players accomplishments from his team, coach, and surroundings.  Mahomes is a great QB who's 1-0 in the super bowl, 1-1 in the AFCCG.  Brady is 6-3 in the super bowl, 9-4 in AFCG.  That's 13 seasons as one of the 4 best teams in the league, with almost .700 win percentage in the final two rounds.  If you weight championships heavily then Mahomes has a looong way to go to beat Brady.  NFL playoffs are such a crapshoot compared to the other American Sports Leagues, and the best team doesn't always win (this coming from a fan of a team that's probably sent 3 of the worst teams ever to the super bowl, two of them won! 2000, 2007, 2011 Giants.)

[Drachma]

False. Because Andy Reid is no Bill Belichick. My other concern with Mahomes, much like any QB that has a tendency to run around and create time in the pocket with the legs and feet? They have a tendency to take hits and land awkwardly.

I have seen this in Jacksonville with Brunell needing a knee brace at one point. And as recently with Minshew needing a brace as well and hurting his groin from doing the same things from the pocket. Rodgers has been hurt doing similar things. As was Luck throughout his career. McNair, McNabb, Newton, RGIII, etc. 

At one point Mahomes ended up dislocating his knee cap. It's not to say he won't be able to finish his career and play more full, 16 game seasons than he ends up playing shortened seasons but I do worry about that characteristic with him in his game. He's an excellent thrower. But that running around stuff can lead to injuries. 

It's the trend of the NFL though. Most QB's are expected to come in now right away and have the ability to wheel around in the pocket. Burrow does that. Tagovailoa does that. Lawrence and Fields are also very similar. 

And you can see teams and coaches now getting ahead of that and preparing for it. This year's LB's that ran at the combine were some of the fastest guys they had a seen collectively in years. They're getting a little bit lighter and faster to keep up with these QB's who can sneak out the back door and run downfield. 

I just don't see Mahomes or any QB for that matter replicating anything remotely close to what Brady accomplished. And a lot of it has to do with coaching in general. People forget that Belichick had some impressive defensive units and ground attacks going on during those Superbowl runs as well. Not very many coaches are as well versed as Belichick is when it comes to every aspect of the game.