The dumb argument regarding Brady vs Montana

[areksoo]

On 2/15/2018 at 11:26 AM, LaserFocus said:

The AFC East has still been soft since 2001, with only the Jets having a brief run of real success. It's been a real factor in helping the Pats gain home field advantage in the postseason, I have no doubt the Pats don't win five Super Bowls if Baltimore is in the AFC East.

You'd think so, but that's not true.  The Patriots have near identical record between their division (0.77) and the rest of the league (0.76) from 2001 until now.  Patriots only swept their division twice.  Sure a Division that doesn't win many games helps the Patriots win their division, but if the other divisional teams are constantly losing, then it helps the Patriots' competitors get easy wins.  Which in turn only hurts the Patriots as it's harder to get home field advantage. 

Patriots are 6-1 vs the Ravens in the regular season from 2001 until now.  Overall the Patriots are 26-7 (0.79) vs the AFC North.  If you want to claim the AFC East is the real factor well then the AFC North is doing their part ensuring the Patriots get home field advantage.  

[LaserFocus]

2 hours ago, areksoo said:

You'd think so, but that's not true.  The Patriots have near identical record between their division (0.77) and the rest of the league (0.76) from 2001 until now.  Patriots only swept their division twice.  Sure a Division that doesn't win many games helps the Patriots win their division, but if the other divisional teams are constantly losing, then it helps the Patriots' competitors get easy wins.  Which in turn only hurts the Patriots as it's harder to get home field advantage. 

Patriots are 6-1 vs the Ravens in the regular season from 2001 until now.  Overall the Patriots are 26-7 (0.79) vs the AFC North.  If you want to claim the AFC East is the real factor well then the AFC North is doing their part ensuring the Patriots get home field advantage.  

Having a cupcake division helps the Patriots in games outside their division. New England has had tough games against the Ravens in the small number of contests they've had since 2001, and you forgot to mention Baltimore's two decisive wins over NE in the playoffs. My point is still valid, had NE had to play Baltimore 34 times in the regular season since 2001 instead of 7, that's a tremendous advantage. The AFC East figures to be soft in the foreseeable future.   

[areksoo]

14 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

Having a cupcake division helps the Patriots in games outside their division. New England has had tough games against the Ravens in the small number of contests they've had since 2001, and you forgot to mention Baltimore's two decisive wins over NE in the playoffs. My point is still valid, had NE had to play Baltimore 34 times in the regular season since 2001 instead of 7, that's a tremendous advantage. The AFC East figures to be soft in the foreseeable future.   

Your point was easy home field advantage because of the AFC East teams.  I told you facts that the AFC East is no better or worse than the rest of the league at beating the Patriots during that time frame.  That's the reality.  They don't have an advantage.  

And the AFC North as a whole haven't done any better at beating the Patriots... and don't blame the Browns.  The Ravens have the exact same 1-6 record as the Browns.  This isn't "what ifs", this is actual results.  If the Patriots were in the NFC North, it doesn't look like much would change because of the actual results.  If the Ravens were in the AFC East, it doesn't look like much would change... again because of the actual results.

This has nothing to do with the playoffs, but even if those playoff games were included, the Ravens still only have a sad 0.27 wining percentage.  The Dolphins were more competition.

[Wolverine_Joe]

On 2/26/2018 at 5:09 PM, LaserFocus said:

Having a cupcake division helps the Patriots in games outside their division. New England has had tough games against the Ravens in the small number of contests they've had since 2001, and you forgot to mention Baltimore's two decisive wins over NE in the playoffs. My point is still valid, had NE had to play Baltimore 34 times in the regular season since 2001 instead of 7, that's a tremendous advantage. The AFC East figures to be soft in the foreseeable future.   

it doesn't matter who the pats play in their division.  pats wins 70% of the time even against any team.   that's how great brady/belichick is.   and they will find a way to win.  they've proven that over and over. 

and let's not forget 2009 brady is a forgettable season for brady.  he just wasn't himself because he came from a major injury. and losing welker right before the playoffs was a huge loss.   and when they lost to ravens again, that ravens team won the SB.  

 

[childofpudding]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:09 PM, LaserFocus said:

Having a cupcake division helps the Patriots in games outside their division. New England has had tough games against the Ravens in the small number of contests they've had since 2001, and you forgot to mention Baltimore's two decisive wins over NE in the playoffs. My point is still valid, had NE had to play Baltimore 34 times in the regular season since 2001 instead of 7, that's a tremendous advantage. The AFC East figures to be soft in the foreseeable future.   

Since 2001, I'd agree that the NFC North has been one of the better divisions. But calling the AFC East a cupcake division isn't true. Here are some facts from PFR. Since 2001:

• MIA/BUF/NYJ have a win percentage of 22.5% against the Patriots. The rest of the league has a win% of 23.5%.
• NE has a win% of 77.9% against the AFC East.
• NE has a win% of (from best to worst) 87.5% against the NFC North, 81.3% against the NFC East, 80.6% against the AFC North, 80.6% against the AFC South, 75% against the NFC West, 75% against the NFC South, and 63.9% against the AFC West.

Given these facts, I think it's safe to say that the Patriots would have been a dominant team no matter what division they were in except, arguably, the AFC West.

[Malik]

21 hours ago, childofpudding said:

Since 2001, I'd agree that the NFC North has been one of the better divisions. But calling the AFC East a cupcake division isn't true. Here are some facts from PFR. Since 2001:

• MIA/BUF/NYJ have a win percentage of 22.5% against the Patriots. The rest of the league has a win% of 23.5%.
• NE has a win% of 77.9% against the AFC East.
• NE has a win% of (from best to worst) 87.5% against the NFC North, 81.3% against the NFC East, 80.6% against the AFC North, 80.6% against the AFC South, 75% against the NFC West, 75% against the NFC South, and 63.9% against the AFC West.

Given these facts, I think it's safe to say that the Patriots would have been a dominant team no matter what division they were in except, arguably, the AFC West.

Pats being good and AFC East being bad are not mutually exclusive things. They are both true. No one would say the Dolphins from 01-Present have been above average. The Bills between 01-Present are arguably in contention for the worst over the spread with only the Browns being definitively worst. No would argue that that the Jets haven't been middling from 01-Present.

[Art_Vandalay]

What's the most difficult AFC East Team Brady's had to compete against throughout his entire career? Tony Sparano and Chad Pennington's Dolphins? Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez's Jets? The Bills, Jets, and Phins have been utterly incompetent for the past 17 years or so. The Pats had basically no resistance until the postseason. Add the [times they got caught] cheating along with getting essentially every questionable call, I'm not calling him the GOAT.

That's not to say he's not top 5 in my mind, but if we're doing an all-time draft where every team and coaching staff is equal, I'm not taking Brady first overall.

[lancerman]

7 hours ago, Art_Vandalay said:

What's the most difficult AFC East Team Brady's had to compete against throughout his entire career? Tony Sparano and Chad Pennington's Dolphins? Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez's Jets? The Bills, Jets, and Phins have been utterly incompetent for the past 17 years or so. The Pats had basically no resistance until the postseason. Add the [times they got caught] cheating along with getting essentially every questionable call, I'm not calling him the GOAT.

That's not to say he's not top 5 in my mind, but if we're doing an all-time draft where every team and coaching staff is equal, I'm not taking Brady first overall.

Kind of a waste of time to name QB's and not look at the overall team. Who was the best QB in Montana's division at any point? Hell Manning spent most of his career in the AFC South with no QB's and then the best QB in the AFC West during his tenure was Phillip Rivers whose team sucked. 

2009 or 2010 Jets were probably the best defense in football of their era and one of the strongest secondaries outside of the Legion and Boom and No Fly Zone of the past 10 years. 

Even in 2014 the Bills were arguably the best defense of the year, certainly up front,  and they pretty much locked down the Packers who had one of the best passing games in football that year. Unfortunately the league was just really good that year overall.

2001 both the Jets and Dolphins were wildcard teams with double digit wins.

Also the Pats for all but two years played first place schedules for 17 years. Saying they had no resistance is such a misdirection. For pretty much the entire 2000's they had a game against Manning's Colts and Ben's Steelers when those teams would have ranked in the top 5 in the NFL every year during that timeframe. He also played the Broncos in the early 2010's every year that Manning was there. In the 16-0 season they played the Colts (number 1 seed), Steelers (number 3 seed), Chargers (number 4 seed), Cowboys (number 1 seed) Giants (wildcard), Redskins (wildcard). So they played 6 games against playoff teams (aka the same amount as divisional games) and won them all. 

Also I'd easily take Brady number 1 if everything was equalized. 

[JAF-N72EX]

Since I was already in the middle of about 5 different projects and one just happens to be about schedules per DVOA (non-weighted). I'll just leave this here. 

Note: I'm in the process of doing a top-100 ranking of all teams since 2002 with the toughest schedule and another that includes the top-100 easiest schedule. I say that because of it's relation to the color code below. 

Note 2: There are 512 teams in total

• Green = Teams that would rank in the top-100 toughest schedules
• Turquoise = Above average but not quite top-100 toughest schedule
• Orange = Below average but not quite top-100 easiest schedule
• Red = Teams that would rank in the top-100 easiest schedules

TM	Year	Sched	Easiest Sched
NE	2002	5.60%	463
NE	2003	2.20%	367
NE	2004	5.60%	463
NE	2005	3.10%	398
NE	2006	-0.80%	224
NE	2007	2.00%	354
NE	2008	-5.60%	58
NE	2009	4.70%	442
NE	2010	4.70%	442
NE	2011	-1.40%	197
NE	2012	-2.90%	143
NE	2013	-0.90%	218
NE	2014	1.50%	332
NE	2015	-4.10%	97
NE	2016	-7.50%	26
NE	2017	-3.90%	105

[lancerman]

8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Since I was already in the middle of about 5 different projects and one just happens to be about schedules per DVOA (non-weighted). I'll just leave this here. 

Note: I'm in the process of doing a top-100 ranking of all teams since 2002 with the toughest schedule and another that includes the top-100 easiest schedule. I say that because of it's relation to the color code below. 

Note 2: There are 512 teams in total

• Green = Teams that would rank in the top-100 toughest schedules
• Turquoise = Above average but not quite top-100 toughest schedule
• Orange = Below average but not quite top-100 easiest schedule
• Red = Teams that would rank in the top-100 easiest schedules

 

TM	Year	Sched	Easiest Sched
NE	2002	5.60%	463
NE	2003	2.20%	367
NE	2004	5.60%	463
NE	2005	3.10%	398
NE	2006	-0.80%	224
NE	2007	2.00%	354
NE	2008	-5.60%	58
NE	2009	4.70%	442
NE	2010	4.70%	442
NE	2011	-1.40%	197
NE	2012	-2.90%	143
NE	2013	-0.90%	218
NE	2014	1.50%	332
NE	2015	-4.10%	97
NE	2016	-7.50%	26
NE	2017	-3.90%	105

4 in the top 100 hardest hardest. 4 in the above average category. 5 in the below average category. 3 in the top 100 easiest. 

Parity.

[Malik]

14 hours ago, lancerman said:

Kind of a waste of time to name QB's and not look at the overall team. Who was the best QB in Montana's division at any point? Hell Manning spent most of his career in the AFC South with no QB's and then the best QB in the AFC West during his tenure was Phillip Rivers whose team sucked. 

2009 or 2010 Jets were probably the best defense in football of their era and one of the strongest secondaries outside of the Legion and Boom and No Fly Zone of the past 10 years. 

Even in 2014 the Bills were arguably the best defense of the year, certainly up front,  and they pretty much locked down the Packers who had one of the best passing games in football that year. Unfortunately the league was just really good that year overall.

2001 both the Jets and Dolphins were wildcard teams with double digit wins.

Also the Pats for all but two years played first place schedules for 17 years. Saying they had no resistance is such a misdirection. For pretty much the entire 2000's they had a game against Manning's Colts and Ben's Steelers when those teams would have ranked in the top 5 in the NFL every year during that timeframe. He also played the Broncos in the early 2010's every year that Manning was there. In the 16-0 season they played the Colts (number 1 seed), Steelers (number 3 seed), Chargers (number 4 seed), Cowboys (number 1 seed) Giants (wildcard), Redskins (wildcard). So they played 6 games against playoff teams (aka the same amount as divisional games) and won them all. 

Also I'd easily take Brady number 1 if everything was equalized. 

What? The 80s Rams were great teams. They were consistently much more difficult than any AFC East team the Pats have had to face. Much better than the Jets, Dolphins, or Bills have been. The AFC South was roughly equivalent when Peyton was playing with the Colts though yes.

[Elky]

Here's the thing: had Scott Norwoord's kick went more towards the left, Jim Kelly's historical ranking would have went through the roof. Bills fans would take the 3 blowouts if it meant Norwood made that kick.

[lancerman]

53 minutes ago, Malik said:

What? The 80s Rams were great teams. They were consistently much more difficult than any AFC East team the Pats have had to face. Much better than the Jets, Dolphins, or Bills have been. The AFC South was roughly equivalent when Peyton was playing with the Colts though yes.

Not a single one was better than the 09 or 10 Jets teams.

In the 1980's the Rams went 11-5 times (once at the start of the decade before Montana's Niners started once right in the middle and once at the end). In the AFC East that happened with the 2001 Dolphins 2008, Dolphins and 2010 Jets. So both divisions 3 times. The Rams went 10-6 three times as well. So did the 2001 Jets, 2004 Jets, 2006 Jets, and if you want to go into the next decade the 2016 Dolphins. Then they went 9-7 once. As did the 2002 Jets, 2009 Jets, and if you want to go there the 2017 Bills. 

And that's just me counting teams that made the playoffs. The Jets also went 9-7 in 2008, 10-6 in 2015, and had a couple of 8-8 seasons. 

Realistically the Jets by themselves were pretty similar to the Rams.

Also the 2004 Bills and 2014 Bills were 9-7 and both were actually statistically some of the best defenses in the league that year. I think there is some crazy stat about how the 2004 Bills were like the best defense to not make the playoffs.

Then the 2002 Dolphins went 9-7, 2003 Dolphins went 10-6, 2005 went 9-7, and 2013 and 2014 went 8-8. So those were another four .500 or better teams that just didn't make the playoffs. 

The supposed weakness of the AFC East has always been very overblown. A big part of it has been merely the Patriots averaging over 12 wins a season every year and locking down the division.

Since 2001 there have been 17 teams in the AFC East that had a .500 or better record that WEREN'T the Patriots. It's only been 17 years so the rest of the division essentially matched the Patriots in .500 or better season.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Why are you folks comparing just Brady and Montana anyways? Because of their Super Bowl rings? That doesn't make them them the best ever to play the position. 

[JAF-N72EX]

19 hours ago, lancerman said:

4 in the top 100 hardest hardest. 4 in the above average category. 5 in the below average category. 3 in the top 100 easiest. 

Parity.

Those are non-weighted and are just "raw" DVOA numbers for now, so take it with a little grain of salt. I have not yet had time to factor in every teams weekly statistics over the same period. 

But all-in-all, based on what I can see(which is pretty limited right now), I would say the notion that the Patriots have had an easier schedule every year than every team in the league is slowly, but closely, becoming equivalent to the big-foot myth. 

Edit: I should clarify that last statement. These last 3 years have been easy so I can why some people claim this but this same claim has been made against the Patriots for years now. That's what I mean about "myth". I'm talking about the years as a whole.