Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 22:56:53 GMT
Kind of pisses me off to read that the Texans first offered DeAndre Hopkins to the Eagles and Philly declined because they didn't want to give up draft picks and have to sign him to a new contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Mar 26, 2020 7:26:34 GMT
Kind of pisses me off to read that the Texans first offered DeAndre Hopkins to the Eagles and Philly declined because they didn't want to give up draft picks and have to sign him to a new contract. Apparently this draft class is loaded with WRs
Would like to see the Eagles (think they have 8 picks left after the Slay trade) nab 2 - and still load up on CBs, S and LB.
Although - we haven't had a very good track record of drafting WRs lately have we?
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Mar 26, 2020 14:11:02 GMT
Eagles continue to revamp the defense - especially the secondary - with another CB signing - Nickell Robey-Coleman from the Rams Pro Football Focus ranked him as the 19th best CB in 2019. Me likey  |
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Mar 26, 2020 14:18:03 GMT
Philly’s secondary was a great source of amusement last season, but they may have fixed it with Darius Slay and Robey-Coleman. Just saw this - yeah I like it.
They added more pressure up the middle too with the addition of Hargrave - and Malik Jackson is expected to be healthy - which is going to be great news for Fletcher Cox - i.e. maybe he won't be seeing so many double teams and getting chipped by RBs when pressuring the QB.
Curious to see how Mills plays at Safety replacing Jenkins - grew tired of watching him get burnt at CB - but he played Safety at LSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Mar 26, 2020 22:24:59 GMT
Xavier Rhodes to the Colts. He really fell off a cliff in the last few years. Let’s hope he rediscovers his past form.
|
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Mar 27, 2020 1:35:06 GMT
This is what it comes down to. The numbers don't lie. The Patriots beat everyone in the NFL at the same rate, so their division is irrelevant. The rest of the AFC East has more wins than the other divisions in football, so it's actually a more competitive division in that regard. You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. And you keep ignoring the points I'm making. The other teams in the AFC East win more than the teams in the other divisions which didn't win the division, but you're forgetting that other divisions have franchises like the Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers, and Cardinals. To say the AFC East has been a more competitive division than the AFC North just because the teams that didn't win the division won more games is basically ignoring the fact that the AFC North has the fucking Browns and the top three teams have each taken turns winning the division for the past decade and the runner-up usually made it to the playoffs. And I'm not even getting into the other divisions like the NFC West where the Seahawks have largely been leading the division the last decade but the other teams went from two-three year periods of contention to quickly rebuilding, and the Rams spent most the decade being completely garbage. The only thing the other AFC East teams manage to do is remain consistently mediocre... which I said earlier. But I guess always being able to stay above 4 wins and below 9 wins year after year while the division winner hasn't won less than 11 games since 2009 is somehow more of an accomplishment than being able to get to the playoffs. Truly a more competitive division. Well, actually, no I don't. I usually try to provide more of an explanation of the numbers. You can't just present numbers without thinking about why those numbers are the way they are. At least not when there are so many variables at play here.  Ok, dude. Well, let's be honest here, none of that is true. I did look at the information, I do have a leg to stand on, and there is plenty of supporting evidence. The problem is that the evidence I can present you with will point toward a different conclusion to the one you've already reached, and you clearly one of those people... so...  And, since then, what have the Jets done? Look, you keep making it seem like I'm talking shit about the Patriots and that I'm saying their success from 2010-2019 only comes from their division being mostly garba -- er, I mean mediocre. BUT it does help. I'm not even bitter. And while the Browns have been garbage, I'm also a Steelers fan (was a Steelers fan first), so the Browns' failure doesn't really bother me too much. I mean, at this point, I really just watch their games to see how they fuck things up. Well, it helped the Falcons where choking that bitch away real good and the Patriots do have Tom Brady... who is very used to making comebacks in important games. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 27, 2020 2:11:49 GMT
This is what it comes down to. The numbers don't lie. The Patriots beat everyone in the NFL at the same rate, so their division is irrelevant. The rest of the AFC East has more wins than the other divisions in football, so it's actually a more competitive division in that regard. You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. I changed zero qualifiers. How many times do I have to say it? I responded to the comment, "The Patriots have benefitted greatly from a weak division." They haven't, because:
1. They lose important divisional games with playoff seeding on the line.
2. They have actually lost a playoff game to a divisional opponent.
3. Their record across the league against every division, every season, is virtually identical. There is literally nothing to suggest the results of any given season would be any different.
How close the division rivals were to the Patriots for the division crown any given year has never been my point. The point I've proven with actual game anecdotes as well as statistics is that the results of the rest of the division are inconsequential, because the Patriots do what they always do to every division. Win. If the NFC North, the AFC South, the NFC East; whoever you want to put in their division were there, the Patriots would beat them, too. You know how I know? Because they did, year in and year out. The Patriots play 6 divisional games every season, and 10 non-divisional games, and they've averaged 12 and a half wins a season since 2010 (your last ten years cutoff). They're dominating two other divisions outside of their own, every year.
Their division 'benefits' them the same way ten other opponents benefit them every year. I'm not even going to ask if you get it, you refuse to.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 27, 2020 2:35:26 GMT
This is what it comes down to. The numbers don't lie. The Patriots beat everyone in the NFL at the same rate, so their division is irrelevant. The rest of the AFC East has more wins than the other divisions in football, so it's actually a more competitive division in that regard. You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. And you keep ignoring the points I'm making. The other teams in the AFC East win more than the teams in the other divisions which didn't win the division, but you're forgetting that other divisions have franchises like the Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers, and Cardinals. To say the AFC East has been a more competitive division than the AFC North just because the teams that didn't win the division won more games is basically ignoring the fact that the AFC North has the fucking Browns and the top three teams have each taken turns winning the division for the past decade and the runner-up usually made it to the playoffs. And I'm not even getting into the other divisions like the NFC West where the Seahawks have largely been leading the division the last decade but the other teams went from two-three year periods of contention to quickly rebuilding, and the Rams spent most the decade being completely garbage. The only thing the other AFC East teams manage to do is remain consistently mediocre... which I said earlier. But I guess always being able to stay above 4 wins and below 9 wins year after year while the division winner hasn't won less than 11 games since 2009 is somehow more of an accomplishment than being able to get to the playoffs. Truly a more competitive division. Well, actually, no I don't. I usually try to provide more of an explanation of the numbers. You can't just present numbers without thinking about why those numbers are the way they are. At least not when there are so many variables at play here. Ok, dude. Well, let's be honest here, none of that is true. I did look at the information, I do have a leg to stand on, and there is plenty of supporting evidence. The problem is that the evidence I can present you with will point toward a different conclusion to the one you've already reached, and you clearly one of those people... so... And, since then, what have the Jets done? Look, you keep making it seem like I'm talking shit about the Patriots and I'm saying their success from 2010-2019 only comes from their division being mostly garba -- er, I mean mediocre. BUT it does help. I'm not even bitter. And while the Browns have been garbage, I'm also a Steelers fan (was a Steelers fan first), so the Browns' failure doesn't really bother me too much. I mean, at this point, I really just watch their games to see how the fuck things up. Well, it helped the Falcons where choking that bitch away real god and the Patriots do have Tom Brady... who is very used to making comebacks in important games. For the sake of the argument, let's concede that the East has been a cakewalk (it hasn't, but let's say that it was.) To try and connect your argument with movieliker's, are you saying that the Patriots consistently beat every team NOT in the AFC East because of how easy the AFC East is? So the Patriots, knowing they are going to win the division no matter what, were able to play looser, thus allowing them to beat the Packers, Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Seahawks, Steelers, Chiefs, Chargers, etc almost 75% of the time? If your argument, that the Patriots are not as good as their success states, were to hold water, shouldn't it reason that they would only beat the rest of the NFL at, like, a 60% rate? Or maybe even just 65%? Hell, if they *only* beat every team in the NFL (not including the AFC East) 70% of the time, that would still be historically good. But, when they go against an NFL team not from their own division, they still win 74.7% of the time with Brady at QB. So the best the NFL has to offer beats Tom Brady 25.3 out of 100 times, and the weak ass, no good, consistently mediocre AFC East teams beat Brady 20.4 out of 100 times. This would portend that the AFC East hasn't helped Brady at all. And in fact, there are 3 divisions that Brady would have an easier time winning, as he beats the NFC East and NFC North 85% of the time, and the AFC North 80% of the time. He *only* beats the NFC South 75% of the time, so I think we can pencil him in for a 4-2/5-1 division record. Which is basically what he's been doing for 20 years to the East. Couple that with a 75% win rate in the other 10 games (so 7-3 or 8-2, or I suppose 7-2-1) and Brady is most likely going no worse than 11-5, and possibly as good as 13-3. Which, ya know, is what he's been doing for 20 years. |
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Mar 27, 2020 3:15:48 GMT
You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. I changed zero qualifiers. How many times do I have to say it? I responded to the comment, "The Patriots have benefitted greatly from a weak division." They haven't, because:
1. They lose important divisional games with playoff seeding on the line.
2. They have actually lost a playoff game to a divisional opponent.
3. Their record across the league against every division, every season, is virtually identical. There is literally nothing to suggest the results of any given season would be any different. "1. They lose important divisional games with playoff seeding on the line." Which isn't really rare for the NFL. Teams lose important games with playoff seeding on the line all the time. "2. They have actually lost a playoff game to a divisional opponent." A playoff game... ten years ago. And that same divisional opponent has literally done fuck all since then. Since the beginning of the Brady era, the Patriots have only faced two teams (one franchise) in their division in the playoffs. They're 1-1. Not exactly a huge sample size. Doesn't really make sense to keep referring to the Patriots losing to the Jets in 2009. And again, you're making it seem like that's not something I haven't already acknowledged. I recognize the Patriots have been great, but the other teams in their division really haven't been. They have won more than the other divisions, but it's not like they've really blown past the competition. They only had 8 more wins than the nearest division (the AFC North) whose teams that didn't win the division totaled 250 wins. Only managed to get 8 more wins than a division with the fucking Browns, my dude. The same franchise that went 1-31 over a two year span. The reason comparing the win totals isn't really an accurate depiction of competitiveness is that it's ignoring playoff appearances... of both the teams in the AFC East and the teams in other divisions... and it's ignoring teams going through rebuilding periods. I mean, I guess because the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills never did any real rebuilding in between periods of contention then they should be celebrated. I guess consistently winning 6, 7, or 8 games a season means they were more successful and/or more competitive last decade. The best the other AFC East teams could do (outside of the Jets appearance in the AFC Championship game in 2010) was four 10 win seasons between the three of them and three wild card round exits. The other teams in the AFC East weren't really very successful last decade... or at least they weren't very successful at being anything other than consistently mediocre. There really is only so many ways for me to tell you that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 尺ロㄈにモイ州凡几 on Mar 27, 2020 3:47:31 GMT
You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. And you keep ignoring the points I'm making. The other teams in the AFC East win more than the teams in the other divisions which didn't win the division, but you're forgetting that other divisions have franchises like the Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers, and Cardinals. To say the AFC East has been a more competitive division than the AFC North just because the teams that didn't win the division won more games is basically ignoring the fact that the AFC North has the fucking Browns and the top three teams have each taken turns winning the division for the past decade and the runner-up usually made it to the playoffs. And I'm not even getting into the other divisions like the NFC West where the Seahawks have largely been leading the division the last decade but the other teams went from two-three year periods of contention to quickly rebuilding, and the Rams spent most the decade being completely garbage. The only thing the other AFC East teams manage to do is remain consistently mediocre... which I said earlier. But I guess always being able to stay above 4 wins and below 9 wins year after year while the division winner hasn't won less than 11 games since 2009 is somehow more of an accomplishment than being able to get to the playoffs. Truly a more competitive division. Well, actually, no I don't. I usually try to provide more of an explanation of the numbers. You can't just present numbers without thinking about why those numbers are the way they are. At least not when there are so many variables at play here. Ok, dude. Well, let's be honest here, none of that is true. I did look at the information, I do have a leg to stand on, and there is plenty of supporting evidence. The problem is that the evidence I can present you with will point toward a different conclusion to the one you've already reached, and you clearly one of those people... so... And, since then, what have the Jets done? Look, you keep making it seem like I'm talking shit about the Patriots and I'm saying their success from 2010-2019 only comes from their division being mostly garba -- er, I mean mediocre. BUT it does help. I'm not even bitter. And while the Browns have been garbage, I'm also a Steelers fan (was a Steelers fan first), so the Browns' failure doesn't really bother me too much. I mean, at this point, I really just watch their games to see how the fuck things up. Well, it helped the Falcons where choking that bitch away real god and the Patriots do have Tom Brady... who is very used to making comebacks in important games. For the sake of the argument, let's concede that the East has been a cakewalk (it hasn't, but let's say that it was.) To try and connect your argument with movieliker's, are you saying that the Patriots consistently beat every team NOT in the AFC East because of how easy the AFC East is? So the Patriots, knowing they are going to win the division no matter what, were able to play looser, thus allowing them to beat the Packers, Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Seahawks, Steelers, Chiefs, Chargers, etc almost 75% of the time? That is not what I am saying. I'm saying the Patriots win their division so much because the other teams in their division that manage to win against them (the Patriots) don't seem to be so good at beating other teams for the most part. The 2015 Jets are a good example of this. They were in playoff contention and went 1-1 against the Patriots (even beat the Patriots in week 16 -- a game that, if the Patriots won, they would've likely had the #1 seed and went to the Super Bowl that year). If they won two more games and had the same win-loss record as the Patriots, they would've won the division if one of those wins was against the Eagles who beat both the Jets and Patriots. Except that's not what my argument is. I've been saying the same thing over and over again in every post, I amazed you two haven't figured out that I am not saying the Patriots aren't as good as their record or that they don't beat other divisions regularly. I have been pretty consistent in saying what my point is, which is: that the other teams in the division aren't good enough to beat the teams the Patriots lose to when they've also beaten the Patriots once or twice that year. The other teams in the AFC East are good at wasting their opportunities and/or never being any better than mediocre. It's why the other three teams have a combined four playoff appearances from 2010-2019 and never won the division any. Well there are now different circumstances with the NFC South. He now plays each team twice, he has a different system, different coach, different teammates, and divisional games are more often than not pick-ems -- especially in that division. I'm not saying there's no chance that the Buccaneers will have a 4-2 or 5-1 or even 6-0 record against the NFC South any of the years or every year Tom Brady is playing in the South, I'm just saying the circumstances aren't going to be the same going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 27, 2020 6:10:59 GMT
You keep changing the qualifiers, dude. And you keep ignoring the points I'm making. The other teams in the AFC East win more than the teams in the other divisions which didn't win the division, but you're forgetting that other divisions have franchises like the Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers, and Cardinals. To say the AFC East has been a more competitive division than the AFC North just because the teams that didn't win the division won more games is basically ignoring the fact that the AFC North has the fucking Browns and the top three teams have each taken turns winning the division for the past decade and the runner-up usually made it to the playoffs. And I'm not even getting into the other divisions like the NFC West where the Seahawks have largely been leading the division the last decade but the other teams went from two-three year periods of contention to quickly rebuilding, and the Rams spent most the decade being completely garbage. The only thing the other AFC East teams manage to do is remain consistently mediocre... which I said earlier. But I guess always being able to stay above 4 wins and below 9 wins year after year while the division winner hasn't won less than 11 games since 2009 is somehow more of an accomplishment than being able to get to the playoffs. Truly a more competitive division. Well, actually, no I don't. I usually try to provide more of an explanation of the numbers. You can't just present numbers without thinking about why those numbers are the way they are. At least not when there are so many variables at play here. Ok, dude. Well, let's be honest here, none of that is true. I did look at the information, I do have a leg to stand on, and there is plenty of supporting evidence. The problem is that the evidence I can present you with will point toward a different conclusion to the one you've already reached, and you clearly one of those people... so... And, since then, what have the Jets done? Look, you keep making it seem like I'm talking shit about the Patriots and I'm saying their success from 2010-2019 only comes from their division being mostly garba -- er, I mean mediocre. BUT it does help. I'm not even bitter. And while the Browns have been garbage, I'm also a Steelers fan (was a Steelers fan first), so the Browns' failure doesn't really bother me too much. I mean, at this point, I really just watch their games to see how the fuck things up. Well, it helped the Falcons where choking that bitch away real god and the Patriots do have Tom Brady... who is very used to making comebacks in important games. For the sake of the argument, let's concede that the East has been a cakewalk (it hasn't, but let's say that it was.) To try and connect your argument with movieliker's, are you saying that the Patriots consistently beat every team NOT in the AFC East because of how easy the AFC East is? So the Patriots, knowing they are going to win the division no matter what, were able to play looser, thus allowing them to beat the Packers, Saints, Eagles, Rams, Falcons, Seahawks, Steelers, Chiefs, Chargers, etc almost 75% of the time? If your argument, that the Patriots are not as good as their success states, were to hold water, shouldn't it reason that they would only beat the rest of the NFL at, like, a 60% rate? Or maybe even just 65%? Hell, if they *only* beat every team in the NFL (not including the AFC East) 70% of the time, that would still be historically good. But, when they go against an NFL team not from their own division, they still win 74.7% of the time with Brady at QB. So the best the NFL has to offer beats Tom Brady 25.3 out of 100 times, and the weak ass, no good, consistently mediocre AFC East teams beat Brady 20.4 out of 100 times. This would portend that the AFC East hasn't helped Brady at all. And in fact, there are 3 divisions that Brady would have an easier time winning, as he beats the NFC East and NFC North 85% of the time, and the AFC North 80% of the time. He *only* beats the NFC South 75% of the time, so I think we can pencil him in for a 4-2/5-1 division record. Which is basically what he's been doing for 20 years to the East. Couple that with a 75% win rate in the other 10 games (so 7-3 or 8-2, or I suppose 7-2-1) and Brady is most likely going no worse than 11-5, and possibly as good as 13-3. Which, ya know, is what he's been doing for 20 years. I never said the Patriots weren't any good. I said the AFC East wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 27, 2020 6:48:32 GMT
That is not what I am saying. I'm saying the Patriots win their division so much because the other teams in their division that manage to win against them (the Patriots) don't seem to be so good at beating other teams for the most part. The 2015 Jets are a good example of this. They were in playoff contention and went 1-1 against the Patriots (even beat the Patriots in week 16 -- a game that, if the Patriots won, they would've likely had the #1 seed and went to the Super Bowl that year). If they won two more games and had the same win-loss record as the Patriots, they would've won the division if one of those wins was against the Eagles who beat both the Jets and Patriots.Ook, glad to see you don't subscribe to movieliker's theory that playing in a weaker division somehow gave the Patriots an advantage against all other teams, and an advantage in the playoffs. A theory, by the way, that both Baltimore and the Saints proved wrong last year. On to what you do believe. So your whole point is that the other AFC East teams over the past ___ years haven't had powerhouses capable of beating any and all challengers? No one ever said that they should have been. Take those Jets from 2015. They were 3-3 in a tough division. The Kansas City Chiefs went 5-1 in their easier division. This gave them the wildcard, and the tough to win in AFC East took the wildcard away from those Jets. Except that's not what my argument is. I've been saying the same thing over and over again in every post, I amazed you two haven't figured out that I am not saying the Patriots aren't as good as their record or that they don't beat other divisions regularly. I have been pretty consistent in saying what my point is, which is: that the other teams in the division aren't good enough to beat the teams the Patriots lose to when they've also beaten the Patriots once or twice that year. The other teams in the AFC East are good at wasting their opportunities and/or never being any better than mediocre. It's why the other three teams have a combined four playoff appearances from 2010-2019 and never won the division any.So your point is that the other teams in the AFC East haven't been powerhouses capable of crushing all challengers? I didn't realize that was up for debate. We are debating whether or not being in the AFC East has been helpful to the Patriots. And it hasn't. There's been many years where losses to the other AFC East teams cost an AFC East team a playoff spot, whereas other teams have been able to make the playoffs due to feeding off their weak division that year. And that still doesn't mean the Patriots had it easy, because they still usually had the best (or tied for the best) record in the NFL, or at least the AFC. I'm just saying the circumstances aren't going to be the same going forward. Circumstances? No. Results? Most likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 27, 2020 6:51:45 GMT
I never said the Patriots weren't any good. I said the AFC East wasn't. And your point is moot. Your theory is debunked. And your team is finished. Enjoy the wildcard! |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 27, 2020 7:13:44 GMT
I never said the Patriots weren't any good. I said the AFC East wasn't. And your point is moot. Your theory is debunked. And your team is finished. Enjoy the wildcard! My team has had the best regular season record for three years straight. And they have been consistently better than Tampa Bay for 15 years. |
|
|
|
Post by hehatesshe on Mar 27, 2020 8:21:34 GMT
And your point is moot. Your theory is debunked. And your team is finished. Enjoy the wildcard! My team has had the best regular season record for three years straight. And they have been consistently better than Tampa Bay for 15 years. It had been a nice run. I didn't say otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Mar 27, 2020 9:46:41 GMT
NFL draft to go on televised as planned - though it of course won’t be a public event. Presumably everything will be done remotely. The NFL is essentially the only sports league with any semblance of “normality” right now and acts as a nice distraction from everything that’s going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 27, 2020 12:29:43 GMT
I changed zero qualifiers. How many times do I have to say it? I responded to the comment, "The Patriots have benefitted greatly from a weak division." They haven't, because:
1. They lose important divisional games with playoff seeding on the line.
2. They have actually lost a playoff game to a divisional opponent.
3. Their record across the league against every division, every season, is virtually identical. There is literally nothing to suggest the results of any given season would be any different. "1. They lose important divisional games with playoff seeding on the line." Which isn't really rare for the NFL. Teams lose important games with playoff seeding on the line all the time. "2. They have actually lost a playoff game to a divisional opponent." A playoff game... ten years ago. And that same divisional opponent has literally done fuck all since then. Since the beginning of the Brady era, the Patriots have only faced two teams (one franchise) in their division in the playoffs. They're 1-1. Not exactly a huge sample size. Doesn't really make sense to keep referring to the Patriots losing to the Jets in 2009. And again, you're making it seem like that's not something I haven't already acknowledged. I recognize the Patriots have been great, but the other teams in their division really haven't been. They have won more than the other divisions, but it's not like they've really blown past the competition. They only had 8 more wins than the nearest division (the AFC North) whose teams that didn't win the division totaled 250 wins. Only managed to get 8 more wins than a division with the fucking Browns, my dude. The same franchise that went 1-31 over a two year span. The reason comparing the win totals isn't really an accurate depiction of competitiveness is that it's ignoring playoff appearances... of both the teams in the AFC East and the teams in other divisions... and it's ignoring teams going through rebuilding periods. I mean, I guess because the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills never did any real rebuilding in between periods of contention then they should be celebrated. I guess consistently winning 6, 7, or 8 games a season means they were more successful and/or more competitive last decade. The best the other AFC East teams could do (outside of the Jets appearance in the AFC Championship game in 2010) was four 10 win seasons between the three of them and three wild card round exits. The other teams in the AFC East weren't really very successful last decade... or at least they weren't very successful at being anything other than consistently mediocre. There really is only so many ways for me to tell you that. Once again you haven't disproved anything I said. "Teams lose important games with playoff seeding on the line all the time." So tell me how this makes the AFC East any different. I specifically said it doesn't matter how good the rest of the AFC East was any given year, and you reply with, "The reason comparing the win totals isn't really an accurate depiction of competitiveness..." I didn't compare win totals, so what the hell are you going on about here? I've said multiple times that my argument does not hinge upon how good any divisional foe has been any given year. I noticed the one part of my post you didn't reply to:
3. Their record across the league against every division, every season, is virtually identical. There is literally nothing to suggest the results of any given season would be any different.
As I pointed out in a previous post, the NFC South for example seems to take turns rebuilding while one team has an impressive year. This is the way it works pretty much across the board, with the AFC East being the exception because the Patriots are winning 12 games a year against all of those divisions. So on average the Pats win 12 games, 7 of them are against every other division in football while 5 of them are against AFC East opponents. This is on average, every season. They beat everyone, everywhere, every year. The AFC East-- good, bad, or mediocre, does not benefit them any more than any other conference in football. Let's break down the seasons by division. I'll use only the 13+ win seasons because surely those were when the Patriots were at their best due to their weak division. 2010: 14-2 3-1 vs. AFC North (loss to the Browns, lol) A win vs. the Chargers 4-0 vs. NFC North A win against the Colts 5-1 vs. AFC East Good thing they had the AFC East to help them sneak into the playoffs. 2011: 13-3 4-0 vs. AFC West 3-1 vs. The NFC East A win against the Colts A loss to the Steelers 5-1 vs. The AFC East Sensing the trend yet? 2016: 14-2 3-1 vs. NFC West A win vs. the Texans 4-0 vs. AFC North A win vs. the Broncos 5-1 vs. AFC East 2017: 13-3 3-1 vs. AFC West 3-1 vs. NFC South A win vs. the Steelers A win vs. the Texans 5-1 vs. AFC East Sure, the AFC East handed them five wins in all of those seasons. But it turns out the rest of football handed them at least 8 in each of those seasons. So where's the benefit of playing in the AFC East? When are the Patriots going to start benefitting from their weak division as opposed to feeding on the rest of the league? I guess we could bring up 2018, where the Patriots lost 5 games to non-divisional opponents-- all of whom missed the playoffs. Guess what? The Patriots won the Super Bowl, anyway. I guess the Pats were lucky the AFC East was just as terrible as the opponents they lost to on their way to a title? But hey, winning the AFC championship in Arrowhead was easy, right? If you're going to make another mile long post which contains no actual argument, please focus on arguments I actually made instead of stuff you made up. Arguing with things I didn't say or highlighting paragraphs and responding with "Whatever, dude," and an emoticon, does not constitute proper rebuttal.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Mar 27, 2020 15:56:56 GMT
Howie Roseman sending out vibes Alshon Jeffery will be back and wants to win here and how much of a good soldier he is and how much he wants to win here.
This has to be positioning so he can try to get something for him at the Draft (which I don't see happening with that contract, his age and his injury) - I'd be shocked if he's back (thinking they just eat his salary and release him) since he was the supposed rat that was chirping in the media about his displeasure with Wentz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 27, 2020 16:26:35 GMT
Howie Roseman sending out vibes Alshon Jeffery will be back and wants to win here and how much of a good soldier he is and how much he wants to win here. My question is, does he want to win there?
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Mar 27, 2020 16:33:58 GMT
Howie Roseman sending out vibes Alshon Jeffery will be back and wants to win here and how much of a good soldier he is and how much he wants to win here. My question is, does he want to win there? Apparently he's stated so to upper management.
He also commented on Instagram about the Slay trade.
I think both parties are playing good soldier - trying to work out a trade (can't see it happening) on Draft Day.
It's odd it came out he was the mole chiriping to the media - he was a leader on and off the field after a slow start.
There was apparently a huge confrontation where a veteran confronted him behind closed doors about him being a rat - but according to former Eagle Chris Long - it wasn't Jeffery at all - kind of seems like the whole McNabb puking incident - some say it happened - others say it didn't.
|
|
