Jump to content
brownie man

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

Will Mahomes pass Brady as the GOAT?  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Mahomes be the Goat?

    • No Mahomes will never surpass Tom Brady
    • Yes one day Patrick Mahomes will be considered the Goat


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

He might be one day because he's one of the most talented QB's I have ever seen play but its way too early for this kind of talk, it's like asking if Kawhi Leonard (not Lebron) will be better than MJ.

Edited by Plat2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plat2 said:

He might be one day because he's one of the most talented QB's I have ever seen play but its way too early for this kind of talk, it's like asking if Kawhi Leonard (not Lebron) will be better than MJ.

Don't you mean Giannis? That's who is the best player in the NBA right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Classic said:

Don't you mean Giannis? That's who is the best player in the NBA right now. 

The NBA is not playing right now. ;)

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 16/05/2020 at 2:50 AM, Classic said:

Don't you mean Giannis? That's who is the best player in the NBA right now. 

I think Kawhi is the best player in the NBA right now plus they both have their rings but that comparison can be made too.

Edited by Plat2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2020 at 4:45 PM, Yin-Yang said:

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. 

 

Sorry, it's been awhile.  Had some things going on to take care of and haven't quite had the time to get into much lately to at least kinda wind it down than just leaving it abruptly, my apologies.   With a couple hours each last 2 days and created a whole excel spreadsheet sheet/table for easy data gatherings (with each year being it's own tab of course).   I wanted to bring a view different things together and come with something substantial.

I made out some simple pictures in a table in excel that represent a lot of data.

Here is for 2001-2019, or the "BB/TB Era."

Also, I am going to have to put this out there.  It seems like you are a Patriots fan either entirely or in some way and (possibly) take offense to having a subpar division that somehow lessens Patriots greatness - that would be a bias if true.  I have really no dog in the fight.

This is Total win %. 

As you can see in the bottom half of the league, there are 3 division with 3 teams in it.  NFC West, AFC South, AFC East.

NFC West all had all of these teams make the SB (2 of them twice) or were relevant for a while (but of course not relevant for a while too obviously, hence the %)

AFC South, Jags had many issues and were not that great overall.  Texans had plenty of "success" (although early years hurt) but could never make it past the divisional.  They had a few great teams though.  Titans have been pretty hit or miss but had multiple years of pretty dang goodness.  Let's dive in, shall we?

AFC South: .445

AFC East: .445

NFC West: 4.52

3 AFC East teams making the mark first.

C58v9Vy.png

Here is Net points overall:

Recurring theme.

AFC East: 1,911

NFC West: -2,078

AFC South: 1,793

3 AFC East teams making the mark first.

T1u1oU8.png

Here is Conference win (Including division)

A little more spread out here.

AFC South: .442

AFC East: .445

NFC West: .446

3 AFC East teams making the mark first.

e5DtM8A.png

 

Here is Division:

 

Similar.  Although 9ers jumped out of this list (with winning record at .522).  Still the AFC South hanging around.

AFC South:  .432

AFC East: .402

3 AFC East teams making the mark first.

 

7NmK4xM.png

 

Here is outside the conference entirely:

AFC South no longer fields 3 teams in this category.  In fact Titans and the Colts are top 5 in the league in this category.  NFC South sports 3 teams in this category now.

Disclaimer - This one fields 17 teams and not 16 like the others only because Bills were the 17th team in comparison and it isn't a winning record.  If Titans/Colt were close  I would also show - but since they are both top 5 in the league, they actually really excelled in this category.  If you didn't want to include AFC East I understand, it would be the NFC South to "win" this with the lowest %.  It also wouldn't make the other 2 "bad" divisions any worse, (NWest, ASouth), so it doesn't help the cause of those divisions being worse since the NSouth would take the cake here.

NFC West:  .471

AFC East: .465

NFC South: .466

3 NFC West teams making the mark first.

l2fgWZ4.png

 

Here is the coveted outside the division entirely (the one you are using base argument for):

AFC South is not on this list.  Titans are relatively strong here.  NFC West continues to be in almost every one of these categories as well.

NFC West:  .438

AFC East:  .478

AFC East does pretty decent here, if you call it that.  However, they are 1 of 2 division that field 3 teams in bottom half of the league.  The next closest one to have 3 divisions is the AFC South, which is the Titans at .511 and it is 3 teams further down than the KC Chiefs, but it is a winning record.

3 NFC West teams making the mark first.

Because in your data that the AFC East was in the middle somewhere (4-6) I think in this category, all it takes is a single team in a division (sometimes 2) to completely tank and skew the division win %, which is what yours accounts for.   Which, it doesn't mean it's wrong.  Just that is how the data is interpreted.

This shows, again, AFC East is with 3 teams in the bottom tier.  You could have 1 pretty good team, 1 okay team, and 1 absolutely disastrous team (if you are taking out the highest and left with 3 lowest), to say, hey this division is way worse.  No, it means one team (maybe 2) is exceptionally worse.  But it sure ain't 3 teams like the East (other than the NWest)

kyjCrjG.png

 

Now, the final one (and perhaps on the higher list of importance?)  is playoff appearances.  Obviously you have a shot at the big game just getting in, that is the number # goal of the season.

To no surprise, there are the same 3 recurring divisions (for the most part) in this list.

AFC South:  15

NFC West: 15

AFC East: 11

3 NFC West teams making the mark first.

SxKoKL1.png

 

Just for a bit of extra information to add to that playoff appearances, I will do the entirety of every team with every division during this span.

AFC East: 28 (Patriots have 17, 3 more than the 2nd highest team, Packers)

AFC North: 29

AFC South: 28

AFC West: 27

NFC East: 30

NFC North: 29

NFC South: 29

NFC West: 28

 

Actually, division playoff appearances were rather close.  Patriots with the highest number of any team and still the division is tied for 2nd worst.

 

So what did we learn during the course of this?

Well, 3 divisions really stuck out as "bad", as 3 teams were consistently in the bottom of the league.  Let's take a tally of the "winning" (but actually losing) divisions that at some point had 3 teams in the bottom half of the category.  First number of how many they "won" and second number is how many times they showed up on the list with 3 teams in that division.  There are 7 total graphs (with 8 being total cause there was a tie at one point and each is counted).

NFC West: 2/6

AFC South: 2/5

AFC East: 4/7

NFC South: 0/1

NFC South never made the mark first for all 3 teams

AFC South never made the mark first for all 3 teams.

AFC East 4 times making the mark first for all 3 teams

NFC West 3 times making the mark first for all 3 teams.

 

Well, it turns out that consistently enough, across the board, the AFC East has been the absolute worst in almost every major statistical category (win % throughout all total variations, playoff appearances).  NFC West had some solid runs and rotated.  AFC South, probably overall worse than the NFC West, had some sorta decent runs and I would say 2nd worst division in the league (obviously similar mold as AFC East with the Colts there).  As these are the only other 2 divisions with consistently 3 teams in the bottom half of these major categories.  NFC West had all 4 team with a string of success multiple times during this course.

So, you going to claim the myth of the AFC East hasn't been the worst (not counting Patriots)?  How?  How can you?  Patriots are great, no question.  The claim is they benefited from a terrible division.  Yes, Patriots did really well vs other teams as well.  Not questioned.  But having better competitiveness in the division could halt some 1st round byes or home field advantage.  Everyone knows division is key.  Those margins can knock out advantages in the playoffs. There just wasn't competitiveness in the division throughout the entire BB/TB tenure to challenge them.

The top 4 teams with over .600 winning %:

(NC means non conference)

yYSM6iS.png

Here is the difference of total win % relative to outside the division. 

Colts: .040

Packers: .031

Steelers: .032

Patriots: .027

It means that Patriots took advantage of their division more than any other team.

It also means Patriots are great AND the division is the worst.  Combine those forces and you get, well, what happened.  It is not a myth the AFC East is the worst.  What division would you argue is worse?  AFC South or NFC West are really the only ones in contention.  Even then, it's hard to say it's "close."

Hopefully the data visually helps.  I can also use it to do some more and better graphs for other stuff in the near future. (Tableau, R) so I thought it was a good time investment to have it down.  It's a good build for my database.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Zalixar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zalixar, going to address some points without the quote tree for page stretching purposes. 

Appreciate the effort put into the tables, but counting them all like they all hold equal weight just doesn’t make sense to me. If we’re recognizing that the Pats dynasty is so great, why are we counting total wins when one division clearly has it much harder in that respect? If we recognize the Pats’ success, why are we counting net points as if one division isn’t at a clear disadvantage in that respect? Why count their playoff appearances when clearly they have the toughest wall to climb? Why even count outside the conference at all, what does that prove that the non-divisional chart does not? So yeah, the AFCE is going to look bad if you put the same message out there (they get beaten down by NE) and wrap it up in different costumes to build a base. 

Take names and familiarity out for a second. You have a dynastic team that has dominated a span of time like no other franchise has. Debatably the GOAT QB and GOAT HC. More titles than anyone else in that allotted time slot and more than most franchises have ever. Now imagine three teams play them twice every single year, and most other teams never have to. Wouldn’t it make total sense that if you tally up their net points, they’d show up poorly? Or their total wins? Or their total playoff appearances? 

And if we’re in the game of presenting doubt - presenting the doubt of what the slim margins might do to the Pats’ playoff record over a period of time - wouldn’t it make equal sense to present the doubt that perhaps the AFCE wouldn’t show up so poorly in your numbers if they had the Chiefs or Seahawks in place of NE? 

And on your other point, the idea that NE would assuredly suffer at the hands of their hypothetical divisional opponents if the AFCE were replaced by others: the only tangible evidence we have (Pats record vs those teams, especially the powerhouses) doesn’t support that. You could argue, with merit, that divisional opponents are familiar with one another and the players generally have more experience against one another, so the results regress to the mean more often than usual. But you’d have to then acknowledge NE would then be getting an advantage as well. And don’t forget - Bill has gameplanned for a Tomlin-Steelers or a Harbaugh-Ravens or a Manning-Colts/Broncos more than he has just about any other coach, as is. The familiarity token doesn’t hold as much water in that respect. If the AFCE was as horrid as you say, you’d think the difference in their divisional record from their non-divisional record would be substantial. But your charts express otherwise, and actually show NE’s win percentages differ the least amongst the Colts, Packers, and Steelers. So factually, those three teams are getting a bigger boost to their win% vs their own division than the Pats are getting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Zalixar, going to address some points without the quote tree for page stretching purposes. 

Appreciate the effort put into the tables, but counting them all like they all hold equal weight just doesn’t make sense to me. If we’re recognizing that the Pats dynasty is so great, why are we counting total wins when one division clearly has it much harder in that respect? If we recognize the Pats’ success, why are we counting net points as if one division isn’t at a clear disadvantage in that respect? Why count their playoff appearances when clearly they have the toughest wall to climb? Why even count outside the conference at all, what does that prove that the non-divisional chart does not? So yeah, the AFCE is going to look bad if you put the same message out there (they get beaten down by NE) and wrap it up in different costumes to build a base. 

Take names and familiarity out for a second. You have a dynastic team that has dominated a span of time like no other franchise has. Debatably the GOAT QB and GOAT HC. More titles than anyone else in that allotted time slot and more than most franchises have ever. Now imagine three teams play them twice every single year, and most other teams never have to. Wouldn’t it make total sense that if you tally up their net points, they’d show up poorly? Or their total wins? Or their total playoff appearances? 

And if we’re in the game of presenting doubt - presenting the doubt of what the slim margins might do to the Pats’ playoff record over a period of time - wouldn’t it make equal sense to present the doubt that perhaps the AFCE wouldn’t show up so poorly in your numbers if they had the Chiefs or Seahawks in place of NE? 

And on your other point, the idea that NE would assuredly suffer at the hands of their hypothetical divisional opponents if the AFCE were replaced by others: the only tangible evidence we have (Pats record vs those teams, especially the powerhouses) doesn’t support that. You could argue, with merit, that divisional opponents are familiar with one another and the players generally have more experience against one another, so the results regress to the mean more often than usual. But you’d have to then acknowledge NE would then be getting an advantage as well. And don’t forget - Bill has gameplanned for a Tomlin-Steelers or a Harbaugh-Ravens or a Manning-Colts/Broncos more than he has just about any other coach, as is. The familiarity token doesn’t hold as much water in that respect. If the AFCE was as horrid as you say, you’d think the difference in their divisional record from their non-divisional record would be substantial. But your charts express otherwise, and actually show NE’s win percentages differ the least amongst the Colts, Packers, and Steelers. So factually, those three teams are getting a bigger boost to their win% vs their own division than the Pats are getting. 

I am putting everything so I am not having a selection bias in what I am showing.  These are the types of % that NFL.com have (Total, Conference, Division, Out of Conference).  The only one that it doesn't have is outside the division entirely, that is because that is the sole stat you are using in your argument.  I am showing all of them.

For this you have to also look at it at a clean slate.  Not knowing Patriots are really good through these years or any other division that has great teams.  These numbers are presented and it shows, consistently, across the board, of every winning % metric (and if you want to measure playoff numbers.  If we went playoff success...they will probably be towards the bottom I would bet) that AFC East is by far the worst.  You take multiple layers and see team success.  On paper, NFC West is pretty awful.  But again, they all had multiple successes and had quality and competing teams.  We can compare those 3 NWest with those 3 AEast, what's worse?  Even on this stat, its close.  But even AEast edges out worse.  Then knowing the success of those NWest teams, it's no comparison. 

 

55 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Appreciate the effort put into the tables, but counting them all like they all hold equal weight just doesn’t make sense to me. If we’re recognizing that the Pats dynasty is so great, why are we counting total wins when one division clearly has it much harder in that respect? If we recognize the Pats’ success, why are we counting net points as if one division isn’t at a clear disadvantage in that respect? Why count their playoff appearances when clearly they have the toughest wall to climb? Why even count outside the conference at all, what does that prove that the non-divisional chart does not? So yeah, the AFCE is going to look bad if you put the same message out there (they get beaten down by NE) and wrap it up in different costumes to build a base. 

 

All of these are good questions and those are second level questions.

Patriots were consistently good across the board.  Pretty much every division had a great team (or 2 or 3).  Those 1 to 3 teams in that division will get beat down by whoever the division lead is at the time.  Dolphins, Jets, and Bills getting beat down by the Patriots is no different than the Bucs getting beat down by the Falcons one year, Saints the next year, and the Panthers the next year.  So every team has to deal with good teams and their division winners.  It just can rotate/change.  Which is a part of my whole point...AEast is the only division that doesn't change/rotate.

Also, East only had the 1 good team, Patriots.  That accounts for only 2 games of the season, or 12.5%.  Taking the NSouth for example, they had anywhere from 1-3 teams at a given time (Bucs really only had the success early 00's for most part).  They get hit harder because now anywhere from 2 (equal to any team in the AE vs Pats) 4, or 6 games vs team's that will hammer them.  Again, this actually hurts every team not in the AEast because they had 2+ teams to struggle with at a given time, the AEast had 1.  The Bills, Dolphins, and Jets STILL couldn't capitalize on a consistent subpar division, they just routinely couldn't do much.  They still have 14 games to make a difference every year if we count Patriots as 2 automatic losses.  They just cannibalized each other and couldn't rise from it.

Let's take the ASouth, one of the perennial bad divisions (based off %).  It is similar to the East, with the Colts being the dominant team.  Houston is bogged down a lot from early (and a couple really bad ones in early 10's).    But the Jaguars had to face the Colts entirely, with several/many successful years of Texans and Titans.  This is why are they are the bottom.  Not very good and had greater competition across the board with multiple teams.  AEast just had the Patriots. 

Playoff appearance is a tough wall to climb, because they couldn't win the division they had to get in as a WC so that limited their success.  Yes, that is absolutely true.  They had significantly fewer trips than the NWest and ASouth, the other 2 divisions battling for "badness."  Can we compare those playoff trips if the difference in numbers were not significant for you?  Well...I think it has been covered pretty well.  AEast had many first round exits barely scoring any points.  So when they had the opportunity, they did pretty much nothing with it (except Jets a couple times).  All the other teams made something of themselves for the most part or at least a string of years.

NWest and ASouth were pretty successful in their trips for the most part.  Playoff wins, Championship and SB visits across multiple teams (and every team in the division actually) got their hands on some success.   Which division had the most amount of teams with least playoff success?  Well, look no further than AEast.  They made nothing of their opportunities. If you wanted to argue that their fewer trips were halted by Patriots success, that is valid.  But their trips, overall between 3 teams, were failures.

You just can't blame the Patriots greatness as to why these teams failed.  These teams just failed plenty by themselves.  Patriots account for 2 games.  They couldn't muster any other decent winning % for the other 14 games every year?  Every team has to deal with 1-2-3 other teams in the division to fight for it.  Jets, Bills, Dolphins just had to deal with the Patriots.  In some ways, they had it easier, they were always playing schedules with the worst teams and then themselves and they still couldn't make it anything out of it.  Pats constantly played the best teams with 1st place schedules and still came out on top.  But obviously harder in the fact that Patriots stayed on top while other teams in other divisions could cycle, that would be an opportunity to rise.

Again, across the board for the bottom half of the league, 3 teams are there.  The AFC East (not the Patriots) is it.  In every other "bad" division, at least 3, and sometimes 4. of those teams had a good amount of success and 2 at any given time.   I would call the Jets the only team with "success."  In general, every single division had all 4 teams see "success."  Sometimes it was only 3 teams.  The AEast, Pats obviously, and if you wanted to make the case for the Jets.  But again, they would still be the most subpar team than most other team, then the AEast would have 2.  Still fewer than 3 and 4 for every other division.

 

Edit:  Some typos and additions.

Edited by Zalixar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zalixar said:

For this you have to also look at it at a clean slate.  Not knowing Patriots are really good through these years or any other division that has great teams.  These numbers are presented and it shows, consistently, across the board, of every winning % metric (and if you want to measure playoff numbers.  If we went playoff success...they will probably be towards the bottom I would bet) that AFC East is by far the worst.  You take multiple layers and see team success.  On paper, NFC West is pretty awful.  But again, they all had multiple successes and had quality and competing teams.  We can compare those 3 NWest with those 3 AEast, what's worse?  Even on this stat, its close.  But even AEast edges out worse.  Then knowing the success of those NWest teams, it's no comparison. 
 

Why would anyone look at it pretending not to know the Patriots were dominant? It’s relevant to why the numbers played out the way they have.

Quote

Patriots were consistently good across the board.  Pretty much every division had a great team (or 2 or 3).  Those 1 to 3 teams in that division will get beat down by whoever the division lead is at the time.  Dolphins, Jets, and Bills getting beat down by the Patriots is no different than the Bucs getting beat down by the Falcons one year, Saints the next year, and the Panthers the next year.  So every team has to deal with good teams and their division winners.  It just can rotate/change.  Which is a part of my whole point...AEast is the only division that doesn't change/rotate.

None were near the Patriots. And not changing/rotating isn’t necessarily proof of a lack of quality from the AFCE - if anything it’s proof of NE’s dominance. The W/L % that NE has vs most other teams suggest that there wouldn’t be a revolving door anywhere else if the Pats got moved. This is sort of a chicken and egg problem, so I’ll leave it there.

Quote

Also, East only had the 1 good team, Patriots.  That accounts for only 2 games of the season, or 12.5%.  Taking the NSouth for example, they had anywhere from 1-3 teams at a given time (Bucs really only had the success early 00's for most part).  They get hit harder because now anywhere from 2 (equal to any team in the AE vs Pats) 4, or 6 games vs team's that will hammer them.  Again, this actually hurts every team not in the AEast because they had 2+ teams to struggle with at a given time, the AEast had 1.  The Bills, Dolphins, and Jets STILL couldn't capitalize on a consistent subpar division, they just routinely couldn't do much.  They still have 14 games to make a difference every year if we count Patriots as 2 automatic losses.  They just cannibalized each other and couldn't rise from it.

Cannibalized each other, but still managed to perform decently vs teams outside the division? So you have a division that is eating itself (from the bottom three) and then a powerhouse up top - so what do you expect them to do? They’re already beating non-divisional teams more than most some others. 

Quote

Let's take the ASouth, one of the perennial bad divisions (based off %).  It is similar to the East, with the Colts being the dominant team.  Houston is bogged down a lot from early (and a couple really bad ones in early 10's).    But the Jaguars had to face the Colts entirely, with several/many successful years of Texans and Titans.  This is why are they are the bottom.  Not very good and had greater competition across the board with multiple teams.  AEast just had the Patriots. 

The Jaguars also have one of the worst non-divisional records in the league, so they’re not losing just because of the teams above them. Not exactly a good comparison for any team other than the Lions or the Browns (at least they got to one championship fame I guess?). 

Quote

Playoff appearance is a tough wall to climb, because they couldn't win the division they had to get in as a WC so that limited their success.  Yes, that is absolutely true.  They had significantly fewer trips than the NWest and ASouth, the other 2 divisions battling for "badness."  Can we compare those playoff trips if the difference in numbers were not significant for you?  Well...I think it has been covered pretty well.  AEast had many first round exits barely scoring any points.  So when they had the opportunity, they did pretty much nothing with it (except Jets a couple times).  All the other teams made something of themselves for the most part or at least a string of years.

You’re ignoring my response to this every time I post it. You clearly discuss margins and want to hypothetically talk about how the Patriots would’ve suffered from losing another game or two per season. So when I say let’s make it equal across the board and hypothesize how the AFCE would perform without a Pats team ahead of them, it gets ignored. You were very much talking about the value of HFA and a bye week, and how NE benefitted from those (earned) advantages. So if they’re so valuable, how would the East have performed if they got those every now and again? How would they do if they had a Colts team that didn’t win the division every year?

Quote

You just can't blame the Patriots greatness as to why these teams failed.  These teams just failed plenty by themselves.  Patriots account for 2 games.  They couldn't muster any other decent winning % for the other 14 games every year?  Every team has to deal with 1-2-3 other teams in the division to fight for it.  Jets, Bills, Dolphins just had to deal with the Patriots.  In some ways, they had it easier, they were always playing schedules with the worst teams and then themselves and they still couldn't make it anything out of it.  Pats constantly played the best teams with 1st place schedules and still came out on top.  But obviously harder in the fact that Patriots stayed on top while other teams in other divisions could cycle, that would be an opportunity to rise.

Lots of misinformation here. 

- I’m not just blaming their shortcomings on NE. I’m saying you’re trying to compare things like playoff appearances when they’re the only teams playing with, what I imagine we can agree on, the best team in that time span. Then you’re trying to look at those numbers and compare them like all the divisions were created equally. It’s disingenuous.

- They did muster a decent win % vs teams outside their division. Which, when comparing divisions, seems relevant. 

- Every team has to deal with 1-2-3 other teams? Is that implying that every division ends up with 3 teams of similar caliber? That’s be a silly comment to make. 

- They had it “easier” than who? The Colts, Steelers, Chiefs in any given season? Sure. But other than three other teams, they have a schedule as difficult as 9 others teams in the AFC. Pretending like “the Jets came in second, so they’re playing 3 other second place teams - that means they have it easier than most teams in the NFL” is such an over exaggeration, especially if you’re going to push back on the point about playing the Pats twice a year. 

Quote

Again, across the board for the bottom half of the league, 3 teams are there.  The AFC East (not the Patriots) is it.  In every other "bad" division, at least 3, and sometimes 4. of those teams had a good amount of success and 2 at any given time.   I would call the Jets the only team with "success."  In general, every single division had all 4 teams see "success."  Sometimes it was only 3 teams.  The AEast, Pats obviously, and if you wanted to make the case for the Jets.  But again, they would still be the most subpar team than most other team, then the AEast would have 2.  Still fewer than 3 and 4 for every other division.

Going by your charts, maybe. Using your valued HFA/byes, I think it’s explainable why the AFCE teams didn’t have more success when they got there. I think their lack of playoff appearances, make absolute sense because they were buried by an NFL giant. We’re talking about the divisions here - so calling a division that routinely does alright vs others, the worst? Doesn’t make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.  Not going to happen.  Brady had Belichick, which is a lot better than having Andy Reid as coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 8:53 AM, candyman93 said:

I like the golf analogy I heard:

 

Brady = Jack Nicklaus

Mahommes = Tiger

Mahommes has to win a lot more to = Tiger.  I like Mahommes but I think all of this talk of him being the next goat is a tad premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 4:18 PM, RamblinMan99 said:

Oh, Marino has definitely been in the discussion for GOAT, partly because of those statistics you have mentioned.  

Brees and Rodgers have one ring a piece, and they're just as much in the discussion.  

Terry Bradshaw said that he doesn't think Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time just because he won 6 Super Bowls. And, that's coming from one of two QBs that had 4 Super Bowls for the last 50 years.  

You generally can't really determine who the greatest QB of all time is.  But, you can form a group of QBs who are considered all time elites.  And, Marino will always be there, despite never winning a Super Bowl. 

 

This is the caveat with all this GOAT talk.  Montana was considered the GOAT at one point.  Right now a lot of folks say Brady is but for how long?    Somebody, someday, is going to come around and be the next greatest thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 9:54 PM, BullsandBroncos said:

Only QB with 2 SB wins with 2 different teams.

 

/thread

The Broncos did not win that SB because of Manning's play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pugger said:

The Broncos did not win that SB because of Manning's play.

They did win it because he smart enough realize that though. Brady would've tried to be a super hero instead of relying on his defense and running game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2020 at 11:46 AM, Hunter2_1 said:

BB has a 75% win rate in the playoffs too. Better than regular season %.

Reid, before the previous playoffs, lost more than he won.

 

It will be a struggle to get anywhere near what BB/TB have done, even though they have a ridiculous offense

Also another thing worth adding is just because they have sick skill players right now doesn't mean they will for the entirety of Mahomes' career.

Kelce is 30 almost 31. Tyreek's speed isn't likely to age that well and who knows when he'll do something stupid again. Andy himself is no spring chicken either.

 

But back to Mahomes - he has a good a chance as anyone currently does right now but it's not particularly likely that anyone will be surpassing Brady anytime soon. Brady's career accomplishments are so absurd that I doubt anyone ever passes some of them tbh.

Edited by Bolts223

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

Why would anyone look at it pretending not to know the Patriots were dominant? It’s relevant to why the numbers played out the way they have.

We were looking where the 3 other teams in the AFC East fell.  And they fell in the bottom of the league across the board.  There's no care about what the Patriots are doing just like no care about what the Seahawks are doing when there's the other 3 teams perennially in the basement as well.  We are just looking at those 3 teams (and compared with like teams and divisions).  Just for the comparison sake.  We look at the Patriots in a different context which has been done.

Quote

None were near the Patriots. And not changing/rotating isn’t necessarily proof of a lack of quality from the AFCE - if anything it’s proof of NE’s dominance. The W/L % that NE has vs most other teams suggest that there wouldn’t be a revolving door anywhere else if the Pats got moved. This is sort of a chicken and egg problem, so I’ll leave it there.

This is not mutually exclusive.  Patriots can be dominant AND the rest of the division can be bad.     

Quote

Cannibalized each other, but still managed to perform decently vs teams outside the division? So you have a division that is eating itself (from the bottom three) and then a powerhouse up top - so what do you expect them to do? They’re already beating non-divisional teams more than most some others. 

That specific stat of winning outside the division is not a "normal" stat line in winning %.  That is one you selectively used for your argument and don't use it with any other win %.  That is still the only 1 win% stat that is "decent."  Every other stat is bad.  Put them together and ....they are bad.  You clearly must not have read my post with the stats.  They were across the board bad and the only division other than the NFC West and AFC South that had close to badness, but not quite as bad.

What division is "better?"

A: 3 teams at 3-7 and 1 team at 10-0

B: 2 teams at 2-8 and 2 teams at 7-3

C: 3 teams at 5-5

 

C has the highest winning %

No team in C has a losing record.

Team A has 3 teams with a losing record and one with a perfect record.

Team B has the most teams with (substantial) winning % but the worst winning % overall

 

So this would be a case of...let's look at other stats for a more complete picture shall we?

 

 

Quote

The Jaguars also have one of the worst non-divisional records in the league, so they’re not losing just because of the teams above them. Not exactly a good comparison for any team other than the Lions or the Browns (at least they got to one championship fame I guess?). 

It was a comparison as that was one of the other divisions that was in the "bad" category.  I did say they were also bad in general.  Again, it is not mutually exclusive to just be bad and lose to good divisional opponents. That's generally what bad means. 

NFC North didn't even touch 2 teams in the bottom half of the league in most of the stats.  AFC North usually only had 2 teams and Cincinnati was near the "bottom" of the bottom of the list, so the better of the bad.

Only 3 divisions consistently had 3 teams in the bottom half of the league in all/most the categories.

Quote

You’re ignoring my response to this every time I post it. You clearly discuss margins and want to hypothetically talk about how the Patriots would’ve suffered from losing another game or two per season. So when I say let’s make it equal across the board and hypothesize how the AFCE would perform without a Pats team ahead of them, it gets ignored. You were very much talking about the value of HFA and a bye week, and how NE benefitted from those (earned) advantages. So if they’re so valuable, how would the East have performed if they got those every now and again? How would they do if they had a Colts team that didn’t win the division every year?

Ignoring what?  You were coming in so hot about disrupting the myth of the AFC East (not the Patriots) as not as bad as everyone thinks they are with the outside division win % by Bills, Dolphins, and Jets were middle of the pack win % with that metric taking out top team from every division at the same time. That is the only metric they were "okay" in and again didn't factor in that those other divisions rotated teams in and out while AEast teams (J,B,D) continually stayed at the bottom.  Almost your entire initial argument was that stat.   But you can't just use one stat. Now we a lot more stats of the major metrics and it shows they are the worst in pretty much every single one.  You are pinning on a stat that isn't even typically made and not wanting to see every other stat that shows that they are bad, across the board, bad, in almost every way, more so than any other division.  There are worse teams then them yes, but it is 1 team in a division, maybe 2.  But this is THREE that are bad, consistently and the data supports it.  Again, the comparable divisions are AFC South and NFC West.  Which has been pointed out that the bottom 3 teams of those divisions were not as bad as the ones from AFC East.

You already agreed that home field advantage and a bye week is advantageous.  So they have an advantage.  So if they don't get that almost every single year, do they make the jump?  That is hypothetical yes, but the rest of the AFC East, that is data backed that they suck.  I have ignored if the Patriots were out of the division how would AFC East teams would fare?  Maybe I misread something, but this is the first time I am reading this specific scenario.  Since their out of the division record is .478, then we can take that as their winning % for the new team which is a tad over 18 wins out of 38 games over the course of the BB/TB era.  But we would have to get rid of their record vs the Pats during that time and then plug in the new stat of wins and losses.  Then it's not speculative at all, that is a pretty fair model to use.  I am going to say without doing it, it's really not going to help them that much at all.  It's not going to make them any better they would still just suck.  But this hasn't been about if the Patriots left how good the Bills, Dolphins, Jets would do, it's how much could the Patriots be hindered by playing with better teams.  Even if it's just a little.  Their wildcard is 2-2.  What if they had 10 wild card games?  Sometimes all it takes is 1 more loss to knock to a WC round. 

Quote

Lots of misinformation here. 

- I’m not just blaming their shortcomings on NE. I’m saying you’re trying to compare things like playoff appearances when they’re the only teams playing with, what I imagine we can agree on, the best team in that time span. Then you’re trying to look at those numbers and compare them like all the divisions were created equally. It’s disingenuous.

Not disingenuous at all.  You can't compare playoff appearances?  That is being disingenuous?  Are you for real?  Of course you can compare playoff appearances.  They had significantly fewer appearances than the 2 divisions that were also almost as bad as them (having 3 teams).  But I didn't just stop at the number.  I went pretty into depth several times about the actual playoff appearances that happened.  Guess what?  AFC East teams overall failed much more miserably in those attempts than ASouth and NWest with those 3 bottom teams.

Quote

- They did muster a decent win % vs teams outside their division. Which, when comparing divisions, seems relevant. 

It is, along with others.  Except you can't just use one stat to help support your point and want to be taken seriously, sorry.  Now THAT is disingenuous. 

Quote

- Every team has to deal with 1-2-3 other teams? Is that implying that every division ends up with 3 teams of similar caliber? That’s be a silly comment to make. 

- They had it “easier” than who? The Colts, Steelers, Chiefs in any given season? Sure. But other than three other teams, they have a schedule as difficult as 9 others teams in the AFC. Pretending like “the Jets came in second, so they’re playing 3 other second place teams - that means they have it easier than most teams in the NFL” is such an over exaggeration, especially if you’re going to push back on the point about playing the Pats twice a year. 

This does not imply that EVERY division ends up with 3 teams of similar caliber.  It's a variable and it can be a combination of those numbers that change/rotate.

AFC North - Browns suck the most.  They had to deal with the Ravens and Steelers who for the most part (Save for a couple seasons) were good/great/playoff/SB willing teams.  That's 2 teams.  Bengals were pretty good for a stretch, that was 3 teams for a time.

NFC North - Lions have been pretty damn bad (although I thought a couple seasons they could make noise but they had first round exit - hey at least they scored more than 3 points!) Packers have been mostly good throughout and Bears and Vikings have weaved back and forth for a variable of 1-3 other teams that are good. 

I think you get the point.  If you really want I can paint a picture of (what I would expect) every single division having multiple teams making runs over the course of this era.  But since that wouldn't influence anything there really is no point.

Yes, when jumped to 2nd place they got to play 2nd place teams and often fell to the bottom of the division the following year.  They got to 2nd place in the first place because they were in 4th the year before.    Overall, they just didn't do well in winning, period.

 

Quote

Going by your charts, maybe. Using your valued HFA/byes, I think it’s explainable why the AFCE teams didn’t have more success when they got there. I think their lack of playoff appearances, make absolute sense because they were buried by an NFL giant. We’re talking about the divisions here - so calling a division that routinely does alright vs others, the worst? Doesn’t make sense. 

That was noted.  So I am unsure if you read anything or not.  I completely agreed that because of the giant that is the Patriots it was difficult to win the division so it had to be at the WC stage.  Just...they didn't do well when they hit the WC stage (overall).  So it's almost as if they were just not good and didn't belong there. 

I am not saying AFC East is the worst division in the league.  I never said that, every team not named Patriots is many shades of awful.  Patriots just benefited because of the bad division.  They received a benefit.  They are not a worse team because of this.  I feel you are taking some great offense to this.  The stats show those teams were bad overall. 

The AFC East is probably the best division over this time only because of the Patriots.  But then again, if the Bills, Jets and Dolphins went 2-14 for the entire 2001-2019 and Patriots did exactly the same, I would probably still call them the best division because of the Patriots success alone so that doesn't really say much.

If you want to go with ignoring, you are doing plenty of ignoring.  NFC West is TERRIBLE in most of these metrics but all 4 teams had moderate or high success.  This looking at the numbers and past the numbers.  You can only look at one number and then not looking at anything past the numbers that is pointed out time and time again.  It's been looked out past the numbers as well for the rest of the AFC East and it is worse than the NFC West by several ways, compared to one of the worst divisions 3 teams, they are significantly worse than them.

 

You need to check Patriots bias for sure that influences how you view the rest of the division.

Edited by Zalixar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×