Jump to content

Are the four best teams in the NFC?


patriotsheatyan

Recommended Posts

If Jags had a QB they'd be in there over the Saints at the very least.
And had they not lost so many guys I think the Pats are over the Saints too.

It seems weird to keep the Packers out they need to get back to the level they were I guess

 

Edit: Also the Falcons, they beat the Rams, almost bet the Eagles, beat the Saints...if they can get their playcalling somewhat back in the direction Shanahan had it going in they will be near the top of the league. And you could argue belong above some of these teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pats lose their LT, a RB, a CB, and two WRs. 

Pats get back their best WR from injury, another WR from injury, get back a tackle from illness, get back a DE from injury, acquire a new starting DE, a starting DT, a starting CB, and they acquired three reward vs risk type players for the offense (Matthews, Patterson, Hill). They also have two 1sts and two 2nds. And Belichick and Brady. 

Dont mind me though, y’all just keep talking about all the L’s they took this offseason - just don’t want to hear all the shade this year when things don’t work out the way you thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

If Jags had a QB they'd be in there over the Saints at the very least.
And had they not lost so many guys I think the Pats are over the Saints too.

It seems weird to keep the Packers out they need to get back to the level they were I guess

 

Edit: Also the Falcons, they beat the Rams, almost bet the Eagles, beat the Saints...if they can get their playcalling somewhat back in the direction Shanahan had it going in they will be near the top of the league. And you could argue belong above some of these teams.

Editing because my dumb self read the title wrong xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Pats lose their LT, a RB, a CB, and two WRs. 

Pats get back their best WR from injury, another WR from injury, get back a tackle from illness, get back a DE from injury, acquire a new starting DE, a starting DT, a starting CB, and they acquired three reward vs risk type players for the offense (Matthews, Patterson, Hill). They also have two 1sts and two 2nds. And Belichick and Brady. 

Dont mind me though, y’all just keep talking about all the L’s they took this offseason - just don’t want to hear all the shade this year when things don’t work out the way you thought.

the nice thing is even if they aren't a best team (most talented roster) it doesn't matter

They are in a division that's barely ever tried to overthrow them for going on 20 years, and are the last man standing in the once best conference in the league.
The AFC sucks.

You have an uber talented Jags roster who is unfortunately holding themselves back willingly by not getting a QB.
And what else? A Pittsburgh team that seems to be on the downswing and will likely need to start over with a rookie soon when Ben retires.
KC? Sure you have to worry about them September to November...but Andy will always Andy in the playoffs.

It's a cake walk practically.

Pats had the least talented roster of the four championship teams last year, but they are the PAts and overcome that.
I'd rather take my licks and be out of the top 4/5 but be in the easier conference....chances are much higher for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, navysaintsfan said:

Editing because my dumb self read the title wrong xD

ha not sure what you said

But to clarify that Saints stuff, I like the Saints team..I was glad a miracle kept you away from the Linc.
Think we would win still, but a tougher matchup....it definitely would've be a competitive game unlike how that game turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

the nice thing is even if they aren't a best team (most talented roster) it doesn't matter

They are in a division that's barely ever tried to overthrow them for going on 20 years, and are the last man standing in the once best conference in the league.
The AFC sucks.

Won’t get into this because I don’t care enough right now to find all the info, but the AFC East myth has been debunked. None of them have been a sustained playoff contender ala 2000s/early 2010s Steelers or Ravens, but it hasn’t been nearly as bad as most make it out to be. 

Add in Peyton Manning (4 SB appearances) and Big Ben (3 SB appearances) to your 20 year equation, and the AFC hasn’t been a cake walk like you say. The championships agree too. Plus, Brady’s record is about the same vs both conferences.

The present day Saints are in a tough division, but the 2017 Rams didn’t have a ton of competition - or rather, both 2nd place finishers had 9-7 records, so they’re at least comparable. I guess the Palmer, Johnson-less Cardinals count at 8-8. 

The 2017 Vikings in a similar boat, featuring a division that lost Rodgers.

The Eagles? The NFC East sans Eagles went 19-29. The AFC East sans Patriots went 20-28. 

Quote

You have an uber talented Jags roster who is unfortunately holding themselves back willingly by not getting a QB.
And what else? A Pittsburgh team that seems to be on the downswing and will likely need to start over with a rookie soon when Ben retires.
KC? Sure you have to worry about them September to November...but Andy will always Andy in the playoffs.

It's a cake walk practically.

Shrug. 

Last I checked, those Jags beat those Rams. Those Steelers beat those Vikings. The Pats beat the Saints. The Chiefs beat the Eagles. 

EDIT: Rams beat the Jags last season.

Im not trying to say the AFC teams are better on paper, but it’s sort of silly to argue that they’re so far beyond their AFC counterparts when they went 0-4 in matchups last season. Discussing who’s better on paper can be fun, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Won’t get into this because I don’t care enough right now to find all the info, but the AFC East myth has been debunked. None of them have been a sustained playoff contender ala 2000s/early 2010s Steelers or Ravens, but it hasn’t been nearly as bad as most make it out to be. 

Add in Peyton Manning (4 SB appearances) and Big Ben (3 SB appearances) to your 20 year equation, and the AFC hasn’t been a cake walk like you say. The championships agree too. Plus, Brady’s record is about the same vs both conferences.

The present day Saints are in a tough division, but the 2017 Rams didn’t have a ton of competition - or rather, both 2nd place finishers had 9-7 records, so they’re at least comparable. I guess the Palmer, Johnson-less Cardinals count at 8-8. 

The 2017 Vikings in a similar boat, featuring a division that lost Rodgers.

The Eagles? The NFC East sans Eagles went 19-29. The AFC East sans Patriots went 20-28. 

Shrug. 

Last I checked, those Jags beat those Rams. Those Steelers beat those Vikings. The Pats beat the Saints. The Chiefs beat the Eagles. 

Im not trying to say the AFC teams are better on paper, but it’s sort of silly to argue that they’re so far beyond their AFC counterparts when they went 0-4 in matchups last season. Discussing who’s better on paper can be fun, though.

 

The Chiefs beating the Eagles in week 2 of last year has me convinced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:
48 minutes ago, Kiltman said:

the nice thing is even if they aren't a best team (most talented roster) it doesn't matter

They are in a division that's barely ever tried to overthrow them for going on 20 years, and are the last man standing in the once best conference in the league.
The AFC sucks.

Won’t get into this because I don’t care enough right now to find all the info, but the AFC East myth has been debunked. None of them have been a sustained playoff contender ala 2000s/early 2010s Steelers or Ravens, but it hasn’t been nearly as bad as most make it out to be. 

Add in Peyton Manning (4 SB appearances) and Big Ben (3 SB appearances) to your 20 year equation, and the AFC hasn’t been a cake walk like you say. The championships agree too. Plus, Brady’s record is about the same vs both conferences.

The present day Saints are in a tough division, but the 2017 Rams didn’t have a ton of competition - or rather, both 2nd place finishers had 9-7 records, so they’re at least comparable. I guess the Palmer, Johnson-less Cardinals count at 8-8. 

The 2017 Vikings in a similar boat, featuring a division that lost Rodgers.

The Eagles? The NFC East sans Eagles went 19-29. The AFC East sans Patriots went 20-28. 

I said the AFC was good, they were in the same spot the NFC soon will be at too.
Housing the best Qbs and rosters. 2000s AFC was pretty stacked at the top.

I was saying now it's becoming a cakewalk over there. When the Titans are one of the best teams in your conference, something went wrong.

I'm not sure how it's a myth (especially an untrue one) that the AFC East hasn't been good for the majority of the 18 years bill and tom have been at it.

I agree the Rams are getting a lot of credit for a team that really didn't do much of anything last year.
But they do have a lot of talent, I don't think that can be denied. This is a future projection.

And I'll be the first to say we benefited from a crappy division around us, in fact I think it..much like with the Pats, it will give us the advantage going forward too when it comes to home field.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kiltman said:

I was saying now it's becoming a cakewalk over there. When the Titans are one of the best teams in your conference, something went wrong.

The Saints and Rams each had one win on their season over the Chiefs and Jags. Plus the 1-3 record in head-to-heads. 

Don’t think the gap is all that sizable.  

Quote

I'm not sure how it's a myth (especially an untrue one) that the AFC East hasn't been good for the majority of the 18 years bill and tom have been at it.

Win percentage against non-division opponents, Brady era sans 2017.

AFC East sans Pats: .473

AFC West: .500 (.466 sans Broncos).

AFC South: .486 (.442 sans Colts). 

AFC North: .510 (.476 sans Steelers).

NFC East: .525 (.510 sans Eagles). 

NFC West: .440 (.404 sans Seahawks).

NFC North: .480 (.446 sans Packers).

NFC South: .511 (.494 sans Falcons). 

Patriots win % against division: .776

Patriots win % outside division: .759 (the following three percentages were AFC teams - Steelers, Colts, Broncos). 

Patriots win % against teams that finished 9-7 or better: .610 (that percentage is higher than any percentage of any team in the NFC overall except for Green Bay). The only other team with a winning record vs 9-7 or better opponents is Pittsburgh. 

Patriots win % against teams that finished in the playoffs: .622 (no other team even had a winning record). 

2002: Jets playoff appearance (Dolphins miss at 9-7).

2003: Dolphins miss playoffs at 10-6.

2004: Jets playoff appearance.

2005: Dolphins miss playoffs at 9-7.

2006: Jets playoff appearance.

2007: All teams obliterated.

2008: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2009: Jets playoff appearance. 

2010: Jets playoff appearance.

2011: Jets miss playoffs at 8-8.

2012: All teams with losing records.

2013: Jets/Dolphins miss playoffs at 8-8.

2014: Bills miss playoffs at 9-7.

2015: Jets miss playoffs at 10-6.

2016: Dolphins playoff appearance.

2017: Bills playoff appearance.

The idea that NE benefits so much from a weak division/conference is false.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...