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

[PatriotsWin!]

Mahomes certainly has all-time-great type talent but can he maintain greatness for another 10...15...20 years? Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Tom Brady, Babe Ruth... all were CONSISTENTLY GREAT over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME... that and their teams were incredibly successful, each one of them winning a **** ton of CHAMPIONSHIPS (all had 5+ to their name... just insane). That's why they're considered GOATS. Lots of talented players have burned incredibly bright over the years, but outside of a select few none have maintained that level of play for more than a few years before fizzling out. Only time will tell if Mahomes can keep this up long enough to enter the conversation for GOAT.

Edited May 12, 2020 by PatriotsWin!

[Kirill]

5 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

😖

If Dee Ford doesn't line up 3 yards offsides, we're not even having this thread.

[childofpudding]

I don't think so, for two main reasons: longevity and cap%. I don't think Mahomes will dominate for as long as Brady has, and it will be awfully hard for him to continue to dominate once he is taking up a big percentage of the cap. Brady's willingness to sign team-friendly deals (before and after Gisele) has been a significant factor in the Patriots' success the last 20 years.

I hope Mahomes has a long and successful career, because he makes football a lot of fun to watch.

[Soko]

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

That doesn't say anything as far as not playing teams in the AFCE other than they don't make the second round of the playoffs almost ever (during this time).  Only the Jets a couple times could manage this feat.  Their Postseasons % is amazing, it really is, no doubt.  

No, but it says they had no issues dominating most teams. So what evidence is there really that switching them with whichever team, would alter their success with any certainty?

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Their wildcard record is only 2-2.  All of them at home and didn't reach the SB on those 2 wins. Not really enough data either way to say what their success would be like playing more WC games.  Of course, that's because they do well in the AFC to warrant first round bye.  One loss (or 1 win by other teams as it is very close margin of victory on many year) puts the Patriots in the WC, who knows how well they have to fare playing an extra game.  It is less likely to play a WC game and win a SB. 

Is that because the lack of a bye week, or is it because the years where they had to play a WC, they were just not as high in quality compared to most seasons? Generally, the higher seed you are, the better team you are. You performed better, at least. So naturally the better team that performed better in the regular season is probably going to have a superior track record against teams that didn’t have that level of success. 

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

One of my statements is:  Patriots benefit greatly from not playing WC games.  Is this true or untrue?  Not counting anything else.  Wins are earned and they earned first round.  The statement is the benefit from not playing WC games.  Doesn't mean other teams couldn't have won 1 or 2 more games to earn that first round bye and bump the Patriots to the WC round sometimes, playing an extra game without rest is tougher, no? 

Undoubtedly true. 

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Regular season wins more or less don't matter for non playoff teams.  Instead of taking generics.  Let's talk depth.

Of course they matter. Why would they not when trying to compare the quality of teams? If, as you said, you switched the Pats with the Browns, who’s to say some of those AFCE teams don’t get byes? Who’s to say with the massive benefit of not participating in the WC round that you say exists, they wouldn’t progress further than they have? Since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, let’s apply that across the board. 

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Bills:  Had the longest current drought of playoff entry of any team.  They managed to make the playoffs in 1999 with a first round exit BB (Before Brady) and then for the first time in 2017.  They managed to score 3 points in a first round exit.  They did return to the playoffs in 2019 to lose again in the first round.  They had some 9 win seasons mixed in with many bad seasons.  Did they have a QB or Coach that could do anything in the AFC East other than pickup a few wins here and there over this span?  A couple Fitzmagic seasons?  Were they ever a threat to the Patriots or make the playoffs as a WC or even were relevant at any point in the past 20 years?  Maybe in 2019.  But mostly in outlook of 2019 and beyond.

So that's one team that is possibly the worst of any team in the league in this span - in the AFC East.  There are some teams with a lower win %, but EVERY other team either had some relevance for a time or had a real shot at the SB in the past 2 decades (except the Browns, sorry Browns).  Patriots are only 2 games.  They couldn't muster anything else during this time span?

See above - you’re subjectively applying “relevance” over actual W/L %. It’s fine if you do, as long as you recognize that you’re using your own basis over facts.

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Dolphins:  Well, they made the WC in 2001 when Tom Brady started playing (week 2) and when the Patriots started their dynasty.  Awesome in 11 wins that year, really great for numbers!  They had a first round exit scoring 3 points.  Now not sure if 2000 is counted for Dolphins BB (Before Brady) win % that's mentioned, but they did manage to have another 11 win season.  Won in OT in the WC and then routed with 0 scored points in the divisional.  But that's BB so that's just there for discussion.

They did nothing relevant until 2008.  To be fair, they had a 10 win season in 2003, great for numbers, no playoffs so doesn't count for anything.  They went to 4 wins and bottom of the division the following year.  You can ping pong them back to the next year with 9-7 (winning record, woot!), only to see they were a 1 win team the following year - 2 winning seasons in this 4 year span?  Must be an amazing team - better can be said for many teams if you looked at a 4 year window.  But were they that good of a team?  Really?

Oh, 2008 was magical for the Dolphins.  Fully taking advantage of a Brady-less Patriots (who still did better than most teams without him).  Pennington, his only 2nd full season playing with the electrifying Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams combo.   That was some great football.  This was the only year the Pennington did anything with the Dolphins, but spiking up that nice 11 win season for win % numbers.  They were routed scoring 9 points in a first round exit.

They wouldn't have another winning season again until 2016 and their last winning season .  They got routed with 12 points scored in a first round exit.

So, some great (statistically in win %) regular season Dolphin seasons (and some decent seasons sprinkled in with Tannehill), wow!  Were they ever a threat to do anything?  At any point?  Did they have an ounce of consistency or relevance other than a couple (non consecutive) off years that happen to be good?  Hey, at least they capitalized off playing a 4th place schedule, only to be put back into their place.  What QB played for the Dolphins not Pennington for 1 year?  Tannehill, who has been pretty okay, but no one ever thought they had a good team.  This was the best the Dolphins could come up with and it was all dissolved because it just wasn't good enough.  It couldn't muster up more than 1 winning season.

Well, that's TWO of the THREE teams in the AFCE not the Patriots, well, not really looking so good really.  Maybe I need to also look at other division worst 2 teams in the span of the last two decades and see if any division compares to 99% non relevance or a shred of consistency for two teams in the same division. 

Somehow it matters over a 20 year span whether the few playoff appearances occur in a 5 year span or a 15 year span? 

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Patriots are the best franchise to exist in this dynasty no questions ask, never questioned that.  Yes, they did own teams with Manning, Rivers, etc.  But teams without those QB's did beat them, and beat them in the playoffs.  Playoffs get tricky with 1 round elimination. 

Again, unevenly applying logic. 

The playoffs get tricky with one round elimination - so if the Pats play a couple more first rounds, who’s to say they fair as well? Not a worthless question, but you then excoriate the other teams for not making enough noise in the playoffs when they got there, typically in the first round because they were behind a dynastic juggernaut. So you’re using the first round to present doubt against the Patriots, but of course knew the Jets/Dolphins/Bills were worthless, throwaways in their playoff losses. If HFA is so important - and would undoubtedly hurt NE - then why don’t the AFCE teams get a break for constantly playing on the road? 

FWIW, I’m not even refuting that the Bills and Dolphins largely weren’t SB threats in the seasons they made it. But you can’t use the “any given Sunday” mantra against the Pats playing an extra game, but then ignore it when discussing the at-the-time snapshot of those teams.

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

They also happen to play in a division that couldn't get their head out of their *** and compete for more than 1 or 2 years at a time, or more than 3 years in 2 decades.  So while they were doing awesome, other divisions had to compete with their own divisions, going through their ebbs and flows, duking it out with  (normally) 3 or 4 teams continuously.  Each of those teams drafting and scheming to win THEIR division (which didn't always work vs Patriots).  Patriots got to just do their own thing and focus the long game.

Yeah, apparently you get passes for 2-14 or 4-12 seasons sprinkled in, as long as you made it to a CG that one time...

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Getting first round byes is an AMAZING advantage that helped catapult their win % (which is probably why its better than regular season, dontcha think?) in addition to an already great team.

Wait a second...

The playoffs have the best of the best teams. You don’t always play the very best because of seeding, but generally speaking, you’re in a tough game every week. And you just got done trashing the AFCE, which applies for nearly half a season’s worth of games. So you’re not actually saying that the first round bye allowed the Patriots to have an easier road than vs the regular season, are you? Because that’d be a silly, silly statement. In fact, we in the Pats forum used to debate about whether or not byes halted late season momentum. 

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

My original main points:

1:  Patriots benefited from not playing WC games.

2:  Patriots benefited from a trash (let's just say lesser) division.

Looking at those 3 teams, sorry, you cannot convince me those teams (collectively) were not worse than any other 3 teams in any division.  Namely cause teams rotated mostly in divisions and even bad teams were good at some point or had potential for awhile (except you Browns, sorry.  Although maybe now is okay for them, maybe).  AFCE again, had the Jets for a few years, but man did that quickly dissipate and really only had a few potential years that fell apart rather quickly.  Other than that, nothing other than some fluff regular season wins and swift 1st round exits, followed up with last place in the division the following year to really show what a solid team they were. 

This is why I was hesitant to even go down this road - again - with someone. No one can ever be convinced or told something that they don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter that the AFCE beats other teams more often - winning doesn’t matter, only QBs, HCs, or SBs do. It doesn’t matter that NE routinely whooped most of it’s competition, if only they didn’t have that bye.

It’s yelling into a wind tunnel.

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

I just think maybe they win ~4 instead of 6 if a couple things don't go their way playing a few more WC games and or some decent competition in the AFCE.  We can also get into a discussion of the Tuck rule and how the Patriot's FG kicker really helped the SB wins and frankly does NOT get enough credit, or any credit for that matter.  But you could also say they got got unlucky with the Tyree catch, etc.  Perhaps that evens out a bit.

Lol, right. Vinatieri gets no credit. What a joke. He’s not widely considered the GOAT, most clutch kicker or anything. Even then - talking about how he “helped” them...well, yeah. He’s on the team. We’re seriously at that point..?

[BleedTheClock]

1 hour ago, Kirill said:

If Dee Ford doesn't line up 3 yards offsides, we're not even having this thread.

🧐

[Zalixar]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

No, but it says they had no issues dominating most teams. So what evidence is there really that switching them with whichever team, would alter their success with any certainty?

Part of where I said that teams draft, scheme, and prepare for winning the division.  Teams can cannibalize each other.

Quote

Is that because the lack of a bye week, or is it because the years where they had to play a WC, they were just not as high in quality compared to most seasons? Generally, the higher seed you are, the better team you are. You performed better, at least. So naturally the better team that performed better in the regular season is probably going to have a superior track record against teams that didn’t have that level of success. 

That would go hand in hand and difficult to tell unless going back thoroughly in the seasons.  Either way, it's 2-2 and that's what it is.  Generally you perform better with a better seed, sometimes other teams don't perform as well (possible there are fewer teams with high amount of wins or just the pool of teams made it weren't that great).  That can work either way.

Quote

Of course they matter. Why would they not when trying to compare the quality of teams? If, as you said, you switched the Pats with the Browns, who’s to say some of those AFCE teams don’t get byes? Who’s to say with the massive benefit of not participating in the WC round that you say exists, they wouldn’t progress further than they have? Since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, let’s apply that across the board. 

It matters and it doesn't matter.  It matters for seeding, it matters for a lot of things.  As far as the switching divisions, do teams not prep more for divisional opponents than other teams?  Would the "better" teams not do the same and probably have more success than just playing the Pats on their schedule that may or may not happen?

But does it matter if a team that is not that good, has a 5 win season, turns around with an 10 win season (with a little better schedule), goes to the wildcard and scores 0 points, loses first round. The following year they win 6 games.  Are they a good team, or did they just have maybe a decent season?  Maybe a few balls bounced their way?  They were not good before that playoff game.  They didn't even do anything in the playoffs, and they did nothing afterwards.  Repeat the cycle once every 5 years. 

Quote

See above - you’re subjectively applying “relevance” over actual W/L %. It’s fine if you do, as long as you recognize that you’re using your own basis over facts.

Okay.  Here is 2000-2018 season of the teams with winning % from 2000 ranking (just pulling from a site).  Now this is counting 2000, so this is Before Brady that counts for 11 wins for Miami and 10 for NY, so their win % would drop (replacing with their 2019 totals)  Either way, it wouldn't fluctuate out of the bottom 10 as Giants had a 12-4 season in 2000

22. New York Giants: 66-78 Regular-season record (.458)

23. Miami: 65-79 Regular-season record (.451)

24. Los Angeles Rams: 64-79-1 Regular-season record (.448)

25. New York Jets: 61-83 Regular-season record (.424)

26. Buffalo: 61-83 Regular-season record (.424)

27. Tennessee: 60-84 Regular-season record (.417)

28. Washington: 59-84-1 Regular-season record (.413)

29. Oakland: 56-88 Regular-season record (.389)

30. Tampa Bay: 52-92 Regular-season record (.361)

31. Jacksonville: 45-99 Regular-season record (.313)

32. Cleveland: 36-107-1 Regular-season record (.253)

So let's see out of the bottom 10 teams

3 from AFCE

2 from AFCS

1 from NFCE

1 from NFCW

1 from AFCN

1 from NFCS

1 from from AFCW

Well,  AFCE has 3 teams in the bottom 10 of winning %.   The next closest (from this) is the AFCS at 2 - in which Houston lands at 15 as the next team.  And they had some BAAAD years.

 

 

Quote

Somehow it matters over a 20 year span whether the few playoff appearances occur in a 5 year span or a 15 year span? 

Again, unevenly applying logic. 

Oh its both.  Low win % and relevance.  Team with the  LONGEST playoff drought is not relevant?  Almost 20 years?  The two times they make the playoffs they have 2 first round exits, and scoring 3 points in one of them?  Who does that?  The Bills.

Quote

The playoffs get tricky with one round elimination - so if the Pats play a couple more first rounds, who’s to say they fair as well? Not a worthless question, but you then excoriate the other teams for not making enough noise in the playoffs when they got there, typically in the first round because they were behind a dynastic juggernaut. So you’re using the first round to present doubt against the Patriots, but of course knew the Jets/Dolphins/Bills were worthless, throwaways in their playoff losses. If HFA is so important - and would undoubtedly hurt NE - then why don’t the AFCE teams get a break for constantly playing on the road? 

The first round is to present an extra game played.  You have a higher chance of losing if you play more games, even on an any given Sunday.  Except, when the AFCE had their few chances, they did like the worst of like, any playoff teams in the past 20 years? 

Not sure, but you know there's years where teams make the playoffs that are clearly not playoff material?  And you wonder how the heck did they get in?  Yeah, when the AFCE teams made it to the playoffs, that was them (for the most part)

Quote

FWIW, I’m not even refuting that the Bills and Dolphins largely weren’t SB threats in the seasons they made it. But you can’t use the “any given Sunday” mantra against the Pats playing an extra game, but then ignore it when discussing the at-the-time snapshot of those teams.

They could feasibly put all their force and will into beating the Patriots as if it was their SB.  Not only were they not SB contenders, they weren't even playoff contenders.  They weren't even "Hey, let's keep a team, QB, or coach together for 3 years or more" contenders. 

Quote

Yeah, apparently you get passes for 2-14 or 4-12 seasons sprinkled in, as long as you made it to a CG that one time...

Wait a second...

The playoffs have the best of the best teams. You don’t always play the very best because of seeding, but generally speaking, you’re in a tough game every week. And you just got done trashing the AFCE, which applies for nearly half a season’s worth of games. So you’re not actually saying that the first round bye allowed the Patriots to have an easier road than vs the regular season, are you? Because that’d be a silly, silly statement. In fact, we in the Pats forum used to debate about whether or not byes halted late season momentum.

I'll quote myself from above:

"Not sure, but you know there's years where teams make the playoffs that are clearly not playoff material?  And you wonder how the heck did they get in?  Yeah, when the AFCE teams made it to the playoffs, that was them (for the most part)."

This does apply to other teams as well.  Upsets do happen, it's not always likely cause well, it's an upset.  There are gambling odds for a reason.  A pretty decent team may get upset by a whatever 5th/6th seed and now team 1/2 gets to play the the WC team.  There are some great wildcard teams out there for sure and some bad division winners.  But typically, WC teams are subpar because they didn't win their division.  Certain teams match up better with others.  Hard to say without looking extensively of every team and match up and whatever else throughout the 2 decades and say yeah, team A matched up better with team B.  If team C managed to beat team B, team A would have a much more difficult match up than with team B.

That sort of thing.  Again, don't really know, so many variables.  Even if playing good teams, you only have to win 2 to get to the SB.  Adding an extra game is that much of an extra risk.  I know small sample, but Patriots were 2-2.  Like you said, maybe they weren't that great of teams compared to others.  If all the SB winning Patriot teams were forced to play a WC game, I think don't win all 6 SB's.  Maybe half - same team.  I know, conjecture, but the extra game, extra chance of losing.  It's hard.  More toll on the body, chance of injuries, etc.  WC's don't win SB's often in general (for circular reasons, may not be as good and have to play 3 games)  But as you said, those in the playoffs are the best teams, so.

 

Quote

This is why I was hesitant to even go down this road - again - with someone. No one can ever be convinced or told something that they don’t agree with. It doesn’t matter that the AFCE beats other teams more often - winning doesn’t matter, only QBs, HCs, or SBs do. It doesn’t matter that NE routinely whooped most of it’s competition, if only they didn’t have that bye.

It’s yelling into a wind tunnel.

Well, it doesn't look like you can be convinced either.  Should we revisit the 3 lowest winning % of teams in the bottom 10?  Which division has 3 of them in it?  Which team in the NFL didn't have a playoff berth in almost 20 years? 

If you don't count the division winner, what would be the record of teams in the playoffs?  Only the Jets have won, I bet the AFCE would be the worst and probably the least amount of points scored per game.    It has to take a lot to convince me, maybe not zero.   It's the AFCLeast for a reason.

Quote

Lol, right. Vinatieri gets no credit. What a joke. He’s not widely considered the GOAT, most clutch kicker or anything. Even then - talking about how he “helped” them...well, yeah. He’s on the team. We’re seriously at that point.?

You know what I mean.  Everyone mentions Brady and Belichick.  Does anyone every mention Vinatieri in the same breath?  No.  No one says well Brady and Belichick, and Vinatieri really are the best!

Besides, he wasn't there for every SB and kickers were instrumental in A LOT of their wins in the regular season and playoffs (just like many teams of course).  Does Tom Brady march down the field to score a game winning TD?  No he marches down the field like no other for a game winning/tying FG.  Everyone does this, yes.  But TB is the king of that for sure and I sure wouldn't want to be on the other side of that.  He would be my number #1 pick of not playing against him/team in that situation btw. 

How many SB's were decided by a FG or less?  How many SB's did he win/lose when he HAD to march down the field for a TD?  This plays more into the team effort in addition individual effort in these debates.  As sometimes talking about Brady/Mahomes/Brees, etc, sometimes the team as a whole.

I know he failed to score a TD vs the Eagles and did get a game winner vs Falcons.  Which, I gotta say is the most whacked out SB ever.  Patriots completely came back from that so hardcore with amazing play, the Falcons did not take a machine gun and shoot themselves in the foot, leg, privates, and torso while finishing that game.  It took 2 to tango for all of that to happen, but everyone knows that story.  I had a friend that's a Falcons fan, he will never recover from that game lol.

Edit: Typos

Edited May 12, 2020 by Zalixar

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Zalixar said:

Part of where I said that teams draft, scheme, and prepare for winning the division.  Teams can cannibalize each other.

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

Quote

That would go hand in hand and difficult to tell unless going back thoroughly in the seasons.  Either way, it's 2-2 and that's what it is.  Generally you perform better with a better seed, sometimes other teams don't perform as well (possible there are fewer teams with high amount of wins or just the pool of teams made it weren't that great).  That can work either way.

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

Quote

It matters and it doesn't matter.  It matters for seeding, it matters for a lot of things.  As far as the switching divisions, do teams not prep more for divisional opponents than other teams?  Would the "better" teams not do the same and probably have more success than just playing the Pats on their schedule that may or may not happen?

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.

Quote

But does it matter if a team that is not that good, has a 5 win season, turns around with an 10 win season (with a little better schedule), goes to the wildcard and scores 0 points, loses first round. The following year they win 6 games.  Are they a good team, or did they just have maybe a decent season?  Maybe a few balls bounced their way?  They were not good before that playoff game.  They didn't even do anything in the playoffs, and they did nothing afterwards.  Repeat the cycle once every 5 years. 

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.

Quote

Okay.  Here is 2000-2018 season of the teams with winning % from 2000 ranking (just pulling from a site).  Now this is counting 2000, so this is Before Brady that counts for 11 wins for Miami and 10 for NY, so their win % would drop (replacing with their 2019 totals)  Either way, it wouldn't fluctuate out of the bottom 10 as Giants had a 12-4 season in 2000

22. New York Giants: 66-78 Regular-season record (.458)

23. Miami: 65-79 Regular-season record (.451)

24. Los Angeles Rams: 64-79-1 Regular-season record (.448)

25. New York Jets: 61-83 Regular-season record (.424)

26. Buffalo: 61-83 Regular-season record (.424)

27. Tennessee: 60-84 Regular-season record (.417)

28. Washington: 59-84-1 Regular-season record (.413)

29. Oakland: 56-88 Regular-season record (.389)

30. Tampa Bay: 52-92 Regular-season record (.361)

31. Jacksonville: 45-99 Regular-season record (.313)

32. Cleveland: 36-107-1 Regular-season record (.253)

So let's see out of the bottom 10 teams

3 from AFCE

2 from AFCS

1 from NFCE

1 from NFCW

1 from AFCN

1 from NFCS

1 from from AFCW

Well,  AFCE has 3 teams in the bottom 10 of winning %.   The next closest (from this) is the AFCS at 2 - in which Houston lands at 15 as the next team.  And they had some BAAAD years.

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.

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? 

Quote

Oh its both.  Low win % and relevance.  Team with the  LONGEST playoff drought is not relevant?  Almost 20 years?  The two times they make the playoffs they have 2 first round exits, and scoring 3 points in one of them?  Who does that?  The Bills.

Highest win % outside the division, for the East*

Quote

The first round is to present an extra game played.  You have a higher chance of losing if you play more games, even on an any given Sunday.  Except, when the AFCE had their few chances, they did like the worst of like, any playoff teams in the past 20 years? 

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.

Quote

Not sure, but you know there's years where teams make the playoffs that are clearly not playoff material?  And you wonder how the heck did they get in?  Yeah, when the AFCE teams made it to the playoffs, that was them (for the most part)

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. 

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.

Quote

They could feasibly put all their force and will into beating the Patriots as if it was their SB.  Not only were they not SB contenders, they weren't even playoff contenders.  They weren't even "Hey, let's keep a team, QB, or coach together for 3 years or more" contenders. 

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

Quote

I'll quote myself from above:

"Not sure, but you know there's years where teams make the playoffs that are clearly not playoff material?  And you wonder how the heck did they get in?  Yeah, when the AFCE teams made it to the playoffs, that was them (for the most part)."

This does apply to other teams as well.  Upsets do happen, it's not always likely cause well, it's an upset.  There are gambling odds for a reason.  A pretty decent team may get upset by a whatever 5th/6th seed and now team 1/2 gets to play the the WC team.  There are some great wildcard teams out there for sure and some bad division winners.  But typically, WC teams are subpar because they didn't win their division.  Certain teams match up better with others.  Hard to say without looking extensively of every team and match up and whatever else throughout the 2 decades and say yeah, team A matched up better with team B.  If team C managed to beat team B, team A would have a much more difficult match up than with team B.

That sort of thing.  Again, don't really know, so many variables.  Even if playing good teams, you only have to win 2 to get to the SB.  Adding an extra game is that much of an extra risk.  I know small sample, but Patriots were 2-2.  Like you said, maybe they weren't that great of teams compared to others.  If all the SB winning Patriot teams were forced to play a WC game, I think don't win all 6 SB's.  Maybe half - same team.  I know, conjecture, but the extra game, extra chance of losing.  It's hard.  More toll on the body, chance of injuries, etc.  WC's don't win SB's often in general (for circular reasons, may not be as good and have to play 3 games)  But as you said, those in the playoffs are the best teams, so.

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...). 

Quote

Well, it doesn't look like you can be convinced either.  Should we revisit the 3 lowest winning % of teams in the bottom 10?  Which division has 3 of them in it?  Which team in the NFL didn't have a playoff berth in almost 20 years?  If you don't count the division winner, what would be the record of playoff teams?  I bet the AFCE would be the worst and probably the least amount of points scored per game.    It has to take a lot to convince me, maybe not zero.   It's the AFCLeast for a reason.

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. 

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. 

Quote

You know what I mean.  Everyone mentions Brady and Belichick.  Does anyone every mention Vinatieri in the same breath?  No.  No one says well Brady and Belichick, and Vinatieri really are the best!

Besides, he wasn't there for every SB and were instrumental in A LOT of their wins in the regular season and playoffs.  Does Tom Brady march down the field to score a game winning TD?  No he marches down the field like no other for a game winning/tying FG.  Everyone does this, yes.  But TB is the king of that for sure.

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. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Yin-Yang

[Hunter2_1]

4 hours ago, Kirill said:

If Dee Ford doesn't line up 3 yards offsides, we're not even having this thread.

Chiefs had plenty more opportunities to win that game. And it's just that...one game. There's 20 years of data.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Hunter2_1

[TecmoSuperJoe]

There is no GOAT in my opinion. Question assumes a false pretense to already be valid. Even if there were, it would be pretty nonsensical. Football is a sport with so many variables/players, that individual success for a QB is still very dependent on other factors/support players. It's not like baseball where you can just step up to the plate and hit 4 home runs. Or basketball where you can put up 50 points mostly on your own accord. Even an accurate QB with the proper footwork, and intuition to make the right pass at the right time still needs adequate blocking, receivers that catch the ball, targets that gain separation. They only play one side of the ball as well. Coaching actually feels like it matters in football more compared to other sports. You won't see an NFL head coach fired after a team starts 0-2 like you would in the NBA. I can understand folks putting value on hardware, and having a good QB obviously helps your chances. In my book though once a QB has a single ring they're fine. How dominant they are, and for how long is probably more important to me anyway. Rings or not. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by PapaShogun

[LieutenantGains]

5 hours ago, Kirill said:

If Dee Ford doesn't line up 3 yards offsides, we're not even having this thread.

If Mahomes could have scored more than 0 points in the first half...

[evilflamingo]

While Mahomes certainly has all the tools and what seems like a really good situation in KC, I think we need to take a step back a review Brady's entire body of work.

For years, the obvious answer to NFL GOAT was Jerry Rice (just like Jordan for NBA or Gretzky for NHL). While the homer in me still hold Rice as the greatest player to ever suit up, Brady gives him a legit run for his money and I wouldn't argue anyone for anointing him. So yeah, Mahomes still has ways to go and while it isn't impossible that he reaches the heights of Brady, it will require a ton of stuff lining up perfectly both for him personally and his team. My guess is that it doesn't happen. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by evilflamingo

[Daimonas]

quote it for the future. patrick mahomes retires in 2028 for similar reasons as andrew luck. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Daimonas

[M.10.E]

LMAO this thread.

[lavar703]

On 5/9/2020 at 1:25 PM, RamblinMan99 said:

Mahomes is the primary reason why they won the Super Bowl.  

Why?  Because most of the SB winning team was already established before he got the chance to start, and Andy Reid is a fat joke.  

He's been choking on postseason games for the entirety of his career.  He needed a QB with talent like Mahomes to drag him across the finish line and finally get a Super Bowl.  

It was definitely a team effort to win the Super Bowl, but Mahomes was just the missing piece the rest of the team needed to get there. 

Yes, Mahomes didn't play so well in the Super Bowl, but KC wasn't able to even get to the Super Bowl for only 50 years.  

Mahomes's play on the way to the SB was much more typical for him, but again, winning the Super Bowl is a team effort in the end.  

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. 

[Kirill]

35 minutes 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. 

I will say this about Reid. The fact that he got ridiculed for never winning a ring before Mahomes was ridiculous. Not once did he ever have "that guy" at QB or a stacked defense to work with.