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

[Soko]

48 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

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.

I mean, you’re choosing to do that, not me. Excluding the fact that one division has to play a team better than the rest is important context that you wish to ignore.

Quote

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.

I read them. You clearly must not have read the issues that I took with most of them. 

The winning outside the division stat provides the best evidence of how a division performs. 

Quote

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

Does one of these divisions have the GOAT team? Pretty relevant.

Quote

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

Already told you my issue with using those stats in this type of argument. If you want to ignore my post, that’s on you.

Quote

Ignoring what?  You were coming in so hot about disrupting the myth of the AFC East with the outside division win % by Bills, Dolphins, and Jets were middle of the pack win % with that metric so they weren't so bad as everyone says they are.  That is the only metric they were "okay" in.  Almost your entire initial argument was that stat.

Lol. Check my post again, guy. I didn’t just use one stat.

Quote

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. 

I must’ve said it a half dozen times now. This’ll be the last time, even though I don’t think we’re on the same page:

HFA/Bye week is advantageous. 

You speculate, NE wouldn’t have been quite as successful if we hypothetically grant them extra losses (which I don’t, but for the sake of this very specific explanation, I’ll grant). 

You also talk about how poor the East has performed in the playoffs. 

So using that logic, we’d have to speculate what an 11-5 or 12-4 Jets team (who missed the playoffs with Bowles at 10-6) would do with a home game in the playoffs. Or the Dolphins team that was led by Ajayi. Or this year’s Bills. Or the AFCCG Jets. Or any of the years they would’ve won the division if NE wasn’t there.

I’m not talking about speculating on their W/L %. I’m talking about their playoff runs. You can not speculate one and not the other.

Quote

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.

It is disingenuous. How many playoff appearances would the AFCS have if you switched the Colts for the Pats? Or the Seahawks for the Pats? BREAKING NEWS: The division that plays with the best team in the league doesn’t make the playoffs often. Shocker.

Quote

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.

You literally said “every division” so I had to ask. So glad we can agree that most teams don’t have 3 high quality teams in any given season (AFCN not withstanding). 

Quote

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.

Lol.

Quote

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. 

See above regarding the speculation. Teams that weren’t great didn’t do well against teams that were? And their opponents had the massive advantage of HFA? Keep breaking my heart with these headlines.

Quote

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. 

Feel whatever you want. I’m not offended. It is grating to post stuff for it to be ignored though, but that’s why I stopped going down this road.

Quote

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.

Most of the metrics you deemed important, correct. I told you exactly why I put little merit in stats that don’t account for the opponents. I mean, you went as far as including inter-conference records, like they have any sort of relevance in this specific discussion. But of course that’s used as another “AFCE bottom again”.

Quote

You have some HEAVY Patriots bias for sure that influences how you view the rest of the division.  You have to check it if you want to continue this.  I wasn't sure at first because you really had the fire to prove the AFC East not the Patriots are not as bad as everyone thinks and you were doing it for the sake of the stats and that it was a common misconception.  But at this point it's ridiculously obvious.  Especially after moving on from hypotheticals (mostly) and dealing with straight up numbers in the face and even going further past the numbers.

And we finally get there. It’s the bias talking, of course. Can’t have a talk with a fan without them only being able to speak through their blue and red microphone, right? We’re done here, man. It was good, for a little.

[Zalixar]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

And we finally get there. It’s the bias talking, of course. Can’t have a talk with a fan without them only being able to speak through their blue and red microphone, right? We’re done here, man. It was good, for a little.

If you ever enter the data or stat world, you will know that a bias isn't something that is taken personally but it is something to note and need to account for. 

I don't think anyone even cares about this.  I made an initial claim that the rest of the AEast (not Patriots) was trash and you were very much against that statement.  And I made the claim before I went through the data, before playoff games, any other divisions or anything, just from a fan's perspective of just making a comment like anyone else on here having an opinion.  Obviously that struck a huge chord with you and we eventually got here as a result.  Because I made the claim I had to be the one to provide evidence eventually.  Claim was the base for yes, hypotheticals.

If there was not enough supporting evidence for my claim then I would realize they weren't as bad as I thought. They were actually worse than I thought.  Amazing.  But they were in almost every metric, collectively.  Not the worst individually, which I knew several teams were worse individually.  But no team is the worst in every metric, even the Browns themselves weren't the worst in every metric.

I'm posting one final picture that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.  The "AFC East Myth" is alive and well, now complete with more supporting evidence. Good Luck

 

 

 

.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Zalixar

[Soko]

@Zalixar

So I ought to check my HEAVY bias in order to be allowed to discuss a topic, but somehow your original hypothesis was actually even more right than you initially thought, after the evidence you deem as important (for...reasons) is put into a a spreadsheet? Might want to take your own advice and get off the high horse, guy. I’m not saying I’m free of all biases, but I’m also not telling people to check themselves because I don’t like their argument. 

But keep telling yourself whatever you need to. Ultimately, the spread of sports-related misinformation isn’t going to cut into my sleep.

[Zalixar]

2 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Zalixar

So I ought to check my HEAVY bias in order to be allowed to discuss a topic, but somehow your original hypothesis was actually even more right than you initially thought, after the evidence you deem as important (for...reasons) is put into a a spreadsheet? Might want to take your own advice and get off the high horse, guy. I’m not saying I’m free of all biases, but I’m also not telling people to check themselves because I don’t like their argument. 

But keep telling yourself whatever you need to. Ultimately, the spread of sports-related misinformation isn’t going to cut into my sleep.

Lol. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Zalixar

[SpacemanSpiff]

Can I say both? Lol. 

Here's my thing: I seriously doubt Mahomes is going to surpass Brady in Super Bowls. I absolutely think Mahomes is going to surpass Manning as the chief rival to Brady for this title, and we'll be having this LeBron vs. Jordan type of debate about Brady / Mahomes forever. 

[rfournier103]

If Mahomes wins six Super Bowls and four Super Bowl MVPs, then I think we can have a discussion about him being the GOAT. 

[Zalixar]

2 hours ago, rfournier103 said:

If Mahomes wins six Super Bowls and four Super Bowl MVPs, then I think we can have a discussion about him being the GOAT. 

Team awards shouldn't be the main factor, but Mahomes will probably have to add like 1 or 2 SBs at least.

 

What if he doesnt win another SB but gets MVP for 10 straight seasons, what's your take?

[rfournier103]

19 minutes ago, Zalixar said:

Team awards shouldn't be the main factor, but Mahomes will probably have to add like 1 or 2 SBs at least.

 

What if he doesnt win another SB but gets MVP for 10 straight seasons, what's your take?

My take would be he’s an amazing QB and you can’t say he couldn’t win the big game, because he’s already done it.
 

Ten straight MVPs makes him the best of his era by far, and very dominant. However, GOATS need championships. He’s got one, and should get more. Let’s see what the next few years bring. I honestly think the AFC balance of power has shifted towards a Kansas City/Baltimore/Tennessee axis. Mahomes - should he stay healthy - should  clean up over the next several years. He’ll be as good as he pushes himself to be.