Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Making Fun of the NFC East, but Not the NFL Overall?

Eric from BBI : Admin : 11/15/2013 7:12 am
They just showed the playoff picture in the entire AFC. They showed the four teams who are leading their divisions and the two teams that would win the Wild Card if the season ended today.

The next four "in the hunt" teams were all 4-5.

In other words, the the 7, 8, 9, and 10th best teams in the AFC only have one more win than the Giants.

There are a lot of bad football teams and bad football out there. It is not just the NFC East.
There's been a ton of shitty football this year  
jcn56 : 11/15/2013 7:20 am : link
If you say it, someone comes around and makes the 'old man pining for the 80's' joke, but I'm not talking about shitty compared to 20 years ago, I'm talking about compared to 2-3 years ago.

I really think the game has declined noticeably in the past few years. Every year, I subscribe to NFL Game Rewind and try to watch the top 3-4 games (in addition to whoever the Giants play). Every year, there's been at least 3-4 matchups that merited watching because they were well matched, solid teams that played a good game. This year, I'm having a hard time finding more than one.

Not sure what it is. Not sure you can peg it statistically either, so it's not a 'compare this stat to 2010' type of exercise. Maybe it's the changes to the CBA, reducing contact time in practice. Maybe it's the nature of the league to push out more vets in favor of rookies. Maybe the players themselves are changing in the face of new news every day about concussions, CTE, their long term health outlook, etc. Whatever it is - sure looks to me like the NFL has taken a hit.
It's crazy  
Pete in MD : 11/15/2013 7:26 am : link
that the Jets would grab the last Wild a Card spot in the AFC if the season ended today. One of only six teams with a winning record in that conference.
bad football is being played....  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 7:26 am : link
...I think the cause is the lack of practice time and lack of intencity when they do practice.
Jcn  
thomasa510 : 11/15/2013 7:32 am : link
Jcn has a good post. I think it's the CBA and the vets being pushed out. Shittier overall product.
also a ton of severe injuries this year  
TexasGmenFan : 11/15/2013 7:33 am : link
but hey lets tack on more thursday night games and make it an 18 game season while we're at it.

that will surely increase quality of play...

(not to mention the transformation of the league into arena ball)
They don't hit during practice  
Giants2012 : 11/15/2013 7:35 am : link
The Product stinks. This is awful football. We're watching borderline pre-season football from every team for at least a qtr with some teams playing at that poor level the entire season.
They can make fun all they want,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 7:37 am : link
they have made fun of the AFC East for over a decade and the Pats have feasted on it en route to the playoffs. If a weaker NFC East is our path to the playoffs then cool..
After seeing recent results...  
FatMan in Charlotte : 11/15/2013 7:41 am : link
I have to agree that IMO, the lack of practice is making the game a poorer product. In addition, I think the new practice rules have actually backfired on the injury situation - injuries are noticeably worse.

It is too small a sample size so far to determine if it is due to not practicing as much or as hard, but players with significant injuries (on IR) is on pace to be almost double what they were last year, and is almost certainly going to be the most amount of players injured in ANY NFL SEASON.
And,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 7:51 am : link
agree with those who lament the lack of practice time as possible big contributors..TC must be turning over on his cot
.....  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 7:55 am : link
I know Go Terps has been pounding the table on this for years, but this is the first year I've felt like most teams are bad and boring. Our team is difficult to watch, but the rest of the league is god awful too. I've watched a lot less non-Giants football because of how uninteresting and poorly played these games have been.
They make fun  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 8:06 am : link
of the NFC East because the best team is in that "in the hunt" category normally.

It's typically a strong conference, to have the division leader at .500 seems weak.

At least that's my perception.

And I wholeheartedly agree, the practice rules etc. have impacted the quality. Not sure if they're to blame for injuries of if that's coincidental, but quality has suffered.
The NFL quality of play generally sucks. I think it's because of  
Victor in CT : 11/15/2013 8:20 am : link
1) the new kinder, gentler training camp 2) Free agency. There is so much player movement now that it's hard to establish continuity.

Greater roster turnover + less real practice team = poor play
Make fun of the NFC East sure.....  
RELICDOA : 11/15/2013 8:34 am : link
Who has the most Superbowls of any division?
Eric, you are right that the NFC East is not the worste in football  
ZogZerg : 11/15/2013 8:34 am : link
The AFC SOUTH holds that title right now:

AFC South = .368 winning ratio, 14-24
NFC East = .421 winning ratio, 16-22

The NFC south isn't far behind.
RE: Make fun of the NFC East sure.....  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 8:41 am : link
In comment 11338627 RELICDOA said:
Quote:
Who has the most Superbowls of any division?
and they are carrying a team with zero.
As far as the NFC East  
JoefromPa : 11/15/2013 8:47 am : link
let's see how the season plays out.

As to the poor play it can be attributed to the number of injuries, especially quarterbacks, which could be related to the lack of solid practice time and getting used to getting hit.
RE: They can make fun all they want,  
AnishPatel : 11/15/2013 8:53 am : link
In comment 11338607 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
they have made fun of the AFC East for over a decade and the Pats have feasted on it en route to the playoffs. If a weaker NFC East is our path to the playoffs then cool..


I don't recall the media ripping on the AFC East. They all knew it was the Pats coming out of that division, and they moved on to talk about the other divisions. Sure the Jets would get attention because of the things they do, but other than that they seemed to fixate on other decisions. The media knew it was the Pats who would win it. I don't recall them ripping on the AFC East like they are with our division.
hades  
BigBlueBuff : 11/15/2013 8:54 am : link
Every conference has at least one team with a Super Bowl goose egg, most have at least two.
Change my 'most'  
BigBlueBuff : 11/15/2013 8:57 am : link
to 'many'
Anish,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 9:06 am : link
for years the AFC East was considered a patsy division. With a few exceptions, 2 wins each over the hapless Dolphins, Hapless Bills and mostly hapless Jets(save for a few years) were almost, if not, a given..

AFC Central as well for the Steelers with again, few exceptions
Forgetting this year,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 9:10 am : link
for the most part, no team in the NFC East was accorded the "2 wins are a given" mantra as if you could go 4-2 or at the very leat 3-3 in your division, it was considered a positive, a necessary "holding serve" if you will..The Pats, for example, NEVER had to worry about holding serve for most of the last decade or more
'56  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 9:13 am : link
Since 1999 the Ravens have had 3 sub .500 seasons and won two SB's and lost two AFC championship games in that time frame. the AFC North may have had a weak bottom (though the Bengals have probably made the playoffs the same # or more times as the Redskins), the top wasn't by any stretch.

That's also because  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:14 am : link
The Patriots were just that good. We've only had one year where we were as good as them during the regular season.
So  
Jerry in DC : 11/15/2013 9:21 am : link
we're saying that the league is "bad" because the teams that would rank in the middle of the league have records of roughly .500?

That's a pretty odd standard. It's hard to imagine any league in any sport being "good" by those standards.
PJ, true  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 9:21 am : link
it was more about the Browns and Bengals being almost a sure 4 wins..

Brett, I don't buy that at all..Yes the Pats were that good, but imo, No way the Pats would have cruised through OUR division year in and year out as they have in the pathetic AFC East..No way
RE: So  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 9:27 am : link
In comment 11338688 Jerry in DC said:
Quote:
we're saying that the league is "bad" because the teams that would rank in the middle of the league have records of roughly .500?

That's a pretty odd standard. It's hard to imagine any league in any sport being "good" by those standards.


Yep. The 7th-10th teams, i.e. the exact dead center of a 16 team conference, would logically be around .500.

Regarding the Pats... I did a post of this awhile ago, found it on Google. The myth that the AFC East is almost always terrible and feeds the Pats 6 wins a year is, not surprisingly, a myth. False. Untrue.

Quote:
...
Kyle : 1/14/2013 12:23 pm : link
The AFC East since 2001:
Jets - 96-96 (8-8)
Dolphins 88-104 (7-9)
Bills - 74-118 (6-10)

Now, those records subtracting games against New England, given that the Pats have been arguably the best team in football, you'd expect most teams to lose to them (which is what happens anyway), at least more often than you'd lose to an 8-8 team.

The AFC East since 2001 w/o Pats games included:
Jets - 90-78 (9-7 team; 6-18 v. Pats)
Dolphins - 81-87 (~8-8 team; 7-17 v. Pats)
Bills - 72-96 (~7-9 team; 2-22 v. Pats)
....  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:27 am : link
They've played our division 3 times with Brady as QB, IIRC.

2011: 3-1 (lost to us)

2007: 4-0

2003: 4-0
So that's 3 times in over a decade they played  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 9:36 am : link
our division..That's not 12 years in a row of almost total gimmes..Are you going to extrapolate out over the 9 other years? Assume they'd do the same? I wouldn't count 2007 as that was arguably the greatest regular season year ever for any team in any era..

2011 our division was very similar to the pathetic AFC East I alluded to for well over a decade
....  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:38 am : link
No, but at least there is some data to point to - may be a small sample size, but it's better than nothing. Combined with Kyle's post above, I'd think that the evidence starts to weigh the other way.
Brett  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 9:38 am : link
in 2003 the Patriots lost to the Redskins 20 - 17 on September 28.

It was their last loss of the season.


So, one of your years is wrong.

And in 2011  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:41 am : link
We had 3 teams at or above .500.
pj,  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:42 am : link
Thanks, good catch. Sorry about that. I rushed through it. :)

Make it 3-1 in 2003.
No problem Brett  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 9:44 am : link
I've been fact checking all your posts for years. You've been great up until now. but now nothing you say has any credibility.
LOL  
BigBlueBuff : 11/15/2013 9:46 am : link
Well played PJ
I don't know that the records are the best  
Go Terps : 11/15/2013 9:47 am : link
method for determining quality of play. After all, whether the game is good or bad someone is going to lose and someone is going to win. I don't know that there is a metric that would be especially useful in proving that the quality of play is down...you kind of just have to use your eyes and common sense.

Less practice means everyone is going to play worse. More injuries means more backups are playing...and those backups are going to be worse than backups in previous years because they practice less. Consider also that because there is less practice time the starters are probably given a higher percentage of valuable practice reps than in the past.

Really, is there any walk of life where less practice is going to make you better?

If we don't count 2007  
Bill in UT : 11/15/2013 9:47 am : link
then I guess we only have one SB with Eli. Or are we just not going to count 2007 for the Pats, lol?
RE: No problem Brett  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 9:50 am : link
In comment 11338735 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I've been fact checking all your posts for years. You've been great up until now. but now nothing you say has any credibility.


I can't believe I ever had credibility. I'm... flattered.
A lot of people  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 9:54 am : link
here looked up to you Brett and followed your posts closely.

To throw that away in a careless rush to be the first one to post the Patriots vs. the NFC East records since 2003 is disappointing.

I really think  
Alex_Webster : 11/15/2013 9:57 am : link
That the bad football is do to lack of practice.As time marches on more younger players with less practice,is effecting the overall product. Project players seem to be busts more often. I think it has to do with fundamentals.This
also seems to be the culprit with rash of injuries.
Tough crowd, Brett  
Bill in UT : 11/15/2013 9:58 am : link
One "mistake" in years and you're a bum, lol. Good thing you're not the Giants FO :)
the trend has been there for a decade or so  
Greg from LI : 11/15/2013 10:04 am : link
It's just intensifying this season.
Didn't see this mentioned could be part of the problem.  
Giants Fan in Steelers Land : 11/15/2013 10:14 am : link
The NFL shifting to a speed finesse passing game may have caused the physicality to decline on many teams over the last few years. As we have seen a team playing soft usually translates to ugly football.
RE: hades  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 10:19 am : link
In comment 11338655 BigBlueBuff said:
Quote:
Every conference has at least one team with a Super Bowl goose egg, most have at least two.
Yes, but I live in Philly and it is a fun little dig at the Eagles fans that they are the only team, in a division with the most Super Bowls, without one.
I'd agree the CBA/cap  
Bill in UT : 11/15/2013 10:20 am : link
has a lot to do with it. A lot of good veterans, who happen to be making "to much" money, being forced out in favor of minimum salary guys.
RE: Tough crowd, Brett  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 10:21 am : link
In comment 11338765 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
One "mistake" in years and you're a bum, lol. Good thing you're not the Giants FO :)


I'm a failure. I deserve it. I'm a fraud.
RE: Anish,  
AnishPatel : 11/15/2013 10:22 am : link
In comment 11338668 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
for years the AFC East was considered a patsy division. With a few exceptions, 2 wins each over the hapless Dolphins, Hapless Bills and mostly hapless Jets(save for a few years) were almost, if not, a given..

AFC Central as well for the Steelers with again, few exceptions


Yeah I agree but I am saying that the media didn't care or rip that division. They knew the Pats were going to win and focused on them. They talked about the Jets because they are attention whores, but overall, the media went on their merry way and talked about other divisions during those years.
RE: I don't know that the records are the best  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 10:25 am : link
In comment 11338743 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Really, is there any walk of life where less practice is going to make you better?
The world of professional Russian Roullete?
Ha  
Go Terps : 11/15/2013 10:28 am : link
One shot.

This is kind of silly  
WideRight : 11/15/2013 10:50 am : link
Its a zero sum game. Leaguewide W = L every year, by definition. A team/division/league can only be "good" if another is equally "bad". They are dependant variables. If your talking about the NFL overall, you have to use some other metric.

RE: Ha  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 10:59 am : link
In comment 11338851 Go Terps said:
Quote:
One shot.

One practice injury would kill your season.
RE: So that's 3 times in over a decade they played  
PaulBlakeTSU : 11/15/2013 11:28 am : link
In comment 11338714 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
our division..That's not 12 years in a row of almost total gimmes..Are you going to extrapolate out over the 9 other years? Assume they'd do the same? I wouldn't count 2007 as that was arguably the greatest regular season year ever for any team in any era..

2011 our division was very similar to the pathetic AFC East I alluded to for well over a decade


From 2002-2011, a decade's worth of football, the Patriots went 35-5 against the NFC.
It's  
thomasa510 : 11/15/2013 12:20 pm : link
It's not just the record it's the overall lower quality of play.

How many special teams gaffes can one watch? It's been a blooper reel year
That only speaks to the unfamiliarity  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:25 pm : link
of those teams with the Pats..If the NFC East during that span had a shot at playing the Pats twice as the AFC East does, they would fare a lot better over the decade than that awful division..

What is the Pats winning pct against the AFC East the last decade or so? Around 80%? What's their percentage against the the rest of the NFL, 60% or so?

The Pats have been terrific, but NO WAY IN HELL they maintain anywhere close to an 80% winning margin against the NFC East over the same span if forced to play each NFL Easter twice per year as They do in their own division, imo..

Obviously we could never prove that, but a REASONABLE conclusion can be made, I believe, that the Pats over the same span, playing each NFC East team twice a year, would yield such an incredibly high winning pct..
One measure of quality of play is turnovers  
SwirlingEddie : 11/15/2013 12:25 pm : link
From 2002 - 2012 in the regular season average turnovers per team per game declined from 1.81 to 1.53, a 15% improvement. From 1992 to 2002 was roughly flat, from 1.79 to 1.81. So by this measure at least, teams are better now than 10 or 20 years ago.
Should read: never yield such an incredibly high winning pct.,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:27 pm : link
.
Again, the average  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 12:29 pm : link
Factoring in games v. the Pats, the AFC East is, on average, 7-9.

Eliminating those games because the Pats are always destroying the whole NFL, the AFC East is, on average, 8-8.

Quote:
...
Kyle : 1/14/2013 12:23 pm : link
The AFC East since 2001:
Jets - 96-96 (8-8)
Dolphins 88-104 (7-9)
Bills - 74-118 (6-10)

Now, those records subtracting games against New England, given that the Pats have been arguably the best team in football, you'd expect most teams to lose to them (which is what happens anyway), at least more often than you'd lose to an 8-8 team.

The AFC East since 2001 w/o Pats games included:
Jets - 90-78 (9-7 team; 6-18 v. Pats)
Dolphins - 81-87 (~8-8 team; 7-17 v. Pats)
Bills - 72-96 (~7-9 team; 2-22 v. Pats)
Kyle, absolutely no idea what your point  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:38 pm : link
is concerning the AFC East vs the NFC East and how the Pats would fare playing each team in our divisionTWICE a year over the SAME time span that the Pats have amassed an .800 winning pct over the teams in their division..

In what stratosphere would the Pats come close to an .800 winning PCT over that time span in our division if forced to play each team TWICE EVERY YEAR?

I did this quickly (pjcas, I need you!)  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 12:41 pm : link
But from 2003-2012, it looks like the Pats had an 81.67% winning percentage against the division and 77% against the rest of the NFL.
And before moving on to other threads,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:43 pm : link
one other point. The Pats are clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the NFL over the time span I'm talking about. As such, in playing the NFC once every 4 years, even though each team would be rather unfamiliar with the other, I would think the Pats would win the vast majority of these "unfamiliarity" games by virtue of their clearly being the better(much better in some cases) football team
I would help you Brett  
pjcas18 : 11/15/2013 12:44 pm : link
but I was told there would be no math.

You're on your own.
RE: And before moving on to other threads,  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 12:44 pm : link
In comment 11339122 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
one other point. The Pats are clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the NFL over the time span I'm talking about. As such, in playing the NFC once every 4 years, even though each team would be rather unfamiliar with the other, I would think the Pats would win the vast majority of these "unfamiliarity" games by virtue of their clearly being the better(much better in some cases) football team


So, even though the Pats have the best coach in the league they'd be at a disadvantage when they play teams more frequently?
Brett, 77% if correct is way higher than I thought,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:45 pm : link
but my point remains the same about playing our division TWICE a year, EVERY YEAR, as opposed to ONCE every 4 years..
Your repeated point is that the AFC East is terrible  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 12:49 pm : link
It's objectively incorrect.
Brett, you're not "hearing" me.  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:49 pm : link
I'm saying the Pats would be terrific in the main against most if not all teams, but NOT to the tune of 80% winning percentage against our division if they played us TWICE a year, EVERY year..It might be 60-70% perhaps, but imho, no way our division doesn't do appreciably better than the AFC East has done over the time in question..That's all I'm saying
Your point is retarded  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 12:52 pm : link
And has no data to support it. They've feasted on the entire NFL throughout that span (other than us in the playoffs, of course). If the Patriots won 5 more games against non-divisional opponents, or lost 3 divisional games, the percentages would be approximately the same (<1% differential).

Further, in five of those 10 years, their record against non-divisional opponents exceeded their record against divisional opponents. Another year it was the same (2007). So they had an equal or better winning percentage against non-divisional opponents in six of the ten years I looked at.
And you Kyle are incorrect or also missing my point.  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:52 pm : link
Against the PATRIOTS the AFC East has been pathetic, been very weak against them. .800 WEAK...The NFC East would never, imho, win only .200 of their games against the Pats if they were in our division..

This year in the NFL  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/15/2013 12:52 pm : link
We have a Denver team on pace to break the scoring record. We have Chief and Panther defenses playing on a historic level through 9 games (not hyperbole, i said historic and meant it). And two of those teams are set to battle twice over the next three weeks at 9-0 and 8-1

You have a Seattle team who will probably go 14-2, 15-1 and finish top 5 on both sides of the ball. You have a New Orleans team who is top 5 on offense and defense and quite possibly better than theyve ever been in this era. The NFC North is incredibly interesting (especially when the QBs are in the lineup). The Pats are the still the Pats even if a marginally watered down version due to injuries.

There is a lot of good football being played in the league this year, a lot of interesting storylines and teams/units worth watching. Its typical though that a fanbase may find themselves a little less excited about a league that their team sucks in. That's natural fan behavior. But the NFL is still incredibly interesting right now
RE: Brett, you're not  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 12:53 pm : link
In comment 11339138 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I'm saying the Pats would be terrific in the main against most if not all teams, but NOT to the tune of 80% winning percentage against our division if they played us TWICE a year, EVERY year..It might be 60-70% perhaps, but imho, no way our division doesn't do appreciably better than the AFC East has done over the time in question..That's all I'm saying


No, I understand what you're saying just fine. It's not backed up by anything than your misguided beliefs.
Brett, you are completely missing my  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 12:58 pm : link
only point. Perhaps someone else could explain it better than I can...

But i'll ask you one question and I'll be done as this is quite frustrating..

Are you saying, that were the Pats to play our division twice a year, every year for the time span in question, that they would ALSO play 81% winning ball against The Eagles with McNabb, Us with Eli and the Cowboys(since 2006) with Romo? Is that what you're saying? Because that's ALL I'm talking about and have been talking about. Not the other divisions..Not the NFC in general, JUST the AFC East vs the Pats and our Division vs the Pats in the scenario outlined..
And of course, it's nothing more than opinions  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 1:01 pm : link
given the Pats only face our division once every 4 years
Perhaps not 80%, but damn close  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 1:03 pm : link
The Pats offense would routinely steamroll this division's shitty secondaries.
....  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 1:04 pm : link
I don't know about 81%, but it would be >70%. There's absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise, really.

If I have time, I'll look at their record against division winners, etc. They've beaten much better competition than the NFCE.
The Pats have drawn easy inter-divisional matchups too  
WideRight : 11/15/2013 1:04 pm : link
A few years ago, coming out as the one seed, they played the NFC west ARI/SF/SEA/STL when they all sucked. That with the AFC East, almost garunteed 10 wins. It was lucky of course. But the storyline was more about how dominant they are rather than how bad their opponents were.
Kyle and Brett,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 1:06 pm : link
fair enough..We can disagree on that opinion..
If the Pats were in the NFC East  
WideRight : 11/15/2013 1:07 pm : link
They would build a different team, and would get different results. Brady would have a health record closer to Romo's, and their performance would suffer.
RE: This year in the NFL  
Hades07 : 11/15/2013 1:30 pm : link
In comment 11339144 MarshallOnMontana said:
Quote:
We have a Denver team on pace to break the scoring record. We have Chief and Panther defenses playing on a historic level through 9 games (not hyperbole, i said historic and meant it). And two of those teams are set to battle twice over the next three weeks at 9-0 and 8-1

You have a Seattle team who will probably go 14-2, 15-1 and finish top 5 on both sides of the ball. You have a New Orleans team who is top 5 on offense and defense and quite possibly better than theyve ever been in this era. The NFC North is incredibly interesting (especially when the QBs are in the lineup). The Pats are the still the Pats even if a marginally watered down version due to injuries.

There is a lot of good football being played in the league this year, a lot of interesting storylines and teams/units worth watching. Its typical though that a fanbase may find themselves a little less excited about a league that their team sucks in. That's natural fan behavior. But the NFL is still incredibly interesting right now
You are correct, lot of interesting story lines. However, overall quality of play is down based on my subjective view. It has been declining for several years now. My concern is that with the new rules that limit what you can do in practice and how often, this trend will continue. Now you my say that I need objective measure, which I don't have, but really I don't need it. Choosing to view or not view is completely subjective as well. For the most part I am watching 1 or two games per week down from 4-5 of a few years ago. The games are not as enjoyable anymore, maybe it is the rule changes, maybe it is the talent level or maybe the fantasy football focus of the broadcasts. IDK, but I hope it gets better, otherwise I will likely watch the Giants games and nothing else, better things to do.
RE: Brett, you're not  
Cam in MO : 11/15/2013 1:40 pm : link
In comment 11339138 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I'm saying the Pats would be terrific in the main against most if not all teams, but NOT to the tune of 80% winning percentage against our division if they played us TWICE a year, EVERY year..It might be 60-70% perhaps, but imho, no way our division doesn't do appreciably better than the AFC East has done over the time in question..That's all I'm saying



The ONLY FACTS that we have to go by were already posted, and they do not support this 'opinion' at all.

So you basically just have been saying, "Well, since the records vs. the NFCE don't support my opinion, it must be because the sample size is too small."

It's being very obtuse. Yes, the sample size is small, but it is idiotic to ignore what it says. And what it says is that even if they had to play the NFCE twice a year, they more than likely would be still winning ~.800. Hell, the records actually point to a higher win percentage than that.


Nope  
Greg from LI : 11/15/2013 1:59 pm : link
Quote:
Its typical though that a fanbase may find themselves a little less excited about a league that their team sucks in. That's natural fan behavior.


The Giants were horrible in the mid-'90s and I watched a helluva lot more football then. Enjoyed it more, too. It was simply a better brand of football. You cite the Chiefs as evidence of quality football? Given its personnel, that team shouldn't even be able to dream about going 9-0. They're a creation of a watered-down league.
Is there  
Jerry in DC : 11/15/2013 2:03 pm : link
any objective measure of the "quality of football"? People seem to be really sure that the "quality" is lower. But it seems like the justification is "because I like it less".

Isn't this like me saying that the board game Candyland was awesome in 1982, but now the quality of Candyland has really dropped over the last 30 years? It's just not a good game anymore and I can't even remember the last time I played it.
Are we reaching a point in football popularity  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 2:09 pm : link
That diehards become scorned lovers of their "sell out" band?

Are there now football hipsters?

Was that NFL network hipster commercial guy a stroke of brilliant foresight?
Greg  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/15/2013 2:16 pm : link
Look at their personnel on defense. They have the best edge rusher tandem in the NFL right now hands down. They have a generational nose tackle prospect in the making in Poe. 350 lbs men shouldn't move like that. They have one of the most physically gifted Safety's to ever pass through the league in Eric Berry. They have one of the top cover corners in Brandon Flowers, who according to many advanced sites has had a couple years where he was arguably the best cover guy. They have an in-his-prime multi time pro bowl LB in Derrick Johnson.

They are loaded on defense. They have't allowed over 17 points in a game this year, first team to do that in over three decades. People want to bemoan the lack of defense in the 2013 NFL, but when we see a mega D, mediocre O team succeeding, its an indictment on the league? And why just focus on the Chief example. Even if you don't think they're good, its not like teams getting off to fast starts and later being exposed isn't somehow common in all eras.

You're gonna have wildcards in the NFC this year the caliber of SF and Carolina, a team like GB will probably miss the playoffs now because Rodgers is going to miss a few games. You're going to have an AFC Wildcard win 12 or 13 games

There are 3 units in the NFL this year playing on an incredible level. Bronco O, Chief and Panther Ds. There are two teams who are incredibly balanced on both sides of the ball and equally capable of beating anyone (Seattle and New Orleans). In most years either team would be the hands down favorite at this point to win a SB and neither is. In fact the team that is doesn't even lead their division. The top 5-6 teams in the league this year are very strong, and the wildcards in both conferences are better than your typical year
This Sunday  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/15/2013 2:19 pm : link
We're going to see a 9-0 Chief team on pace to finish in the top 5 range in pts allowed in a 16 game season, face an 8-1 Bronco team on pace to break the scoring record. In a game to decide the lead in the division

And then they're going to do it again in two weeks.
Greg is BBI's hipster  
Nitro : 11/15/2013 2:22 pm : link
always has been.
RE: Greg is BBI's hipster  
Greg from LI : 11/15/2013 2:33 pm : link
In comment 11339347 Nitro said:
Quote:
always has been.


Motherfuckers get killed for comments like that.
Check this out  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/15/2013 2:36 pm : link
The Chiefs have allowed 111 points in 9 games (12.3 ppg). Relative to the league average (23.3) that minus 11 difference is a bigger gap than even the 2000 Ravens had

They've also scored 6 times on defense and put 42 points on the board. Subtract those 42 from the 111, and they've allowed a NET of 69 points in 9 games. Basically a touchdown a game

They have 2 meetings with a monster, historic offense. Its unlikely they put up a top 5 season all time in terms of points allowed given that. The Broncos will probably hang 30 on them at least once. But what they're doing right now is insane, even with some scheduling luck. This team could break the sack record in an era where sacks are down, and could score more than any defense ever has
first rule of being a hipster is denial  
Nitro : 11/15/2013 2:38 pm : link
of being said hipster.
Which is a self-fulfilling point  
Greg from LI : 11/15/2013 2:43 pm : link
You're gonna need more evidence than that, counselor.
RE: RE: Brett, you're not  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 2:44 pm : link
In comment 11339251 Cam in MO said:
Quote:
In comment 11339138 Big Blue '56 said:


Quote:


I'm saying the Pats would be terrific in the main against most if not all teams, but NOT to the tune of 80% winning percentage against our division if they played us TWICE a year, EVERY year..It might be 60-70% perhaps, but imho, no way our division doesn't do appreciably better than the AFC East has done over the time in question..That's all I'm saying




The ONLY FACTS that we have to go by were already posted, and they do not support this 'opinion' at all.

So you basically just have been saying, "Well, since the records vs. the NFCE don't support my opinion, it must be because the sample size is too small."

It's being very obtuse. Yes, the sample size is small, but it is idiotic to ignore what it says. And what it says is that even if they had to play the NFCE twice a year, they more than likely would be still winning ~.800. Hell, the records actually point to a higher win percentage than that.



My favorite part is this, which was quickly was disproved:

Quote:
What is the Pats winning pct against the AFC East the last decade or so? Around 80%? What's their percentage against the the rest of the NFL, 60% or so?

The Pats have been terrific, but NO WAY IN HELL they maintain anywhere close to an 80% winning margin against the NFC East over the same span if forced to play each NFL Easter twice per year as They do in their own division, imo..
RE: RE: Greg is BBI's hipster  
Cam in MO : 11/15/2013 2:45 pm : link
In comment 11339367 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 11339347 Nitro said:


Quote:


always has been.



Motherfuckers get killed for comments like that.



LMAO
Cam, wtf are you talking about? What evidence?  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:11 pm : link
There is NO evidence of how well or poorly the Pats would do against the NFC East if they played them during the era in question(McNabb, Romo, Eli) twice a year EVERY year instead of every FOUR years..

The only "evidence" we have would be anecdotal and from my eyes(and a bunch of others to be sure), the last Decade or so, the AFC East has been, with occasional exceptions, a shitshow, pretty much what the NFC East is TODAY..

So my eyes tell me, that from what I've seen of the AFC East the last decade or so was a largely non-competitive crapfest AGAINST THE PATRIOTS, to the tune of around 19% winning percentage against the Pats.

All I OPINED was that the NFC East playing the Pats twice a year, every year, as the AFC East has, would do much better than a 19% winning percentage with the QBs in the division I mentioned above..

So please don't give me this obtuse crap..There is no and cannot be, anything other than opinions based on observation..Hat's all. There is NO EVIDENCE..

I was not talking about the AFC East record against the rest of the league, just against the Pats..And against the Pats they have been beyond woeful with rare exceptions. I do not believe the Pats would do as well against the NFC East the teams in the time frame mentioned...JUST AN OPINION..
RE: Cam, wtf are you talking about? What evidence?  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 3:13 pm : link
In comment 11339507 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
There is NO evidence of how well or poorly the Pats would do against the NFC East if they played them during the era in question(McNabb, Romo, Eli) twice a year EVERY year instead of every FOUR years..

The only "evidence" we have would be anecdotal and from my eyes(and a bunch of others to be sure), the last Decade or so, the AFC East has been, with occasional exceptions, a shitshow, pretty much what the NFC East is TODAY..

So my eyes tell me, that from what I've seen of the AFC East the last decade or so was a largely non-competitive crapfest AGAINST THE PATRIOTS, to the tune of around 19% winning percentage against the Pats.

All I OPINED was that the NFC East playing the Pats twice a year, every year, as the AFC East has, would do much better than a 19% winning percentage with the QBs in the division I mentioned above..

So please don't give me this obtuse crap..There is no and cannot be, anything other than opinions based on observation..Hat's all. There is NO EVIDENCE..

I was not talking about the AFC East record against the rest of the league, just against the Pats..And against the Pats they have been beyond woeful with rare exceptions. I do not believe the Pats would do as well against the NFC East the teams in the time frame mentioned...JUST AN OPINION..


Dude. This isn't true. The AFC East minus the Patriots has been 7-9, on average, since 2001. If you eliminate games against the Patriots, the AFC East has been, on average, 8-8 since 2001.

8-8 is NFL league average.

The division has been average.
And,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:16 pm : link
just like so many here declared the season to be over when we were 0-6, that the remaining 10 games were meaningless, it was nothing more than opinions. We'll see whether those opinions(premature, imo and I said so back then) are proven to be correct. But regardless, There was no evidence that guided the opinions of those who guaranteed the season to be over. The only evidence, was that after 6 games we were pathetic..Beyond that there was nothing more than opinions that projected the final 10 games
RANDOM caps lock  
Wuphat : 11/15/2013 3:18 pm : link
to SHOW emphasis on CERTAIN words!
Kyle, would you stop..  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:18 pm : link
I don't care if the the AFC East played .800 ball against the rest of the league..Against the PATRIOTS they were horrific..The NFC East would never be as horrific against the PATS ONLY, imo..

hmmm  
Wuphat : 11/15/2013 3:20 pm : link
Quote:
The NFC East would never be as horrific against the PATS ONLY, imo..


You forgot to add:

Despite the facts indicate otherwise.
this THREAD is AWESOME  
Jon from PA : 11/15/2013 3:20 pm : link
.
This is painful.  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 3:25 pm : link
.
Wuphat wrong!  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:26 pm : link
You haven't read the entire thread, otherwise you would know the point here.

The Pats the last decade or so were 35-5 against the NFC East playing them every 4 years..So what..Every 4 years does not speak to my point of how the Pats would fare playing the NFC East twice a year, every year over a decade..Every 4 years is not two times each year
RE: Kyle, would you stop..  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 3:26 pm : link
In comment 11339541 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
I don't care if the the AFC East played .800 ball against the rest of the league..Against the PATRIOTS they were horrific..The NFC East would never be as horrific against the PATS ONLY, imo..


What possible rationale would there be for that point? Everything other than your hopes and dreams indicates otherwise thus far.
Brett, stop being a child.  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:27 pm : link
There's nothing painful about an opinion, simply because it doesn't support yours..
Brett, good lawd  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:28 pm : link
I'm done with you..
can someone go back to the 90's  
GMANinDC : 11/15/2013 3:28 pm : link
and look at the Eagles record against the NFC?.. I know there was a point that the were winning the NFCE like 5 years straight..
it's an opinion based on nothing but homerism.  
Jon from PA : 11/15/2013 3:29 pm : link
. facts say you are wrong.
Jon, fuck you  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:30 pm : link
with the homerism
BB56  
Wuphat : 11/15/2013 3:30 pm : link
I have, in fact, read the entire thread.

The problem you're having is that you have formed an opinion and are sticking to it despite the fact that the numbers indicate something different.

Now, it's fine for you to have that opinion as we are all entitled to hold one of our own. However, we are not entitled to our own facts, and the facts available to us at this moment indicate something contrary to the opinion you hold.

Perhaps with more information in the future, your opinion will bear out to true, but based on what's available now, your opinion does not correlate to what's demonstrated by the numbers.

RE: Brett, stop being a child.  
BrettNYG10 : 11/15/2013 3:32 pm : link
In comment 11339578 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
There's nothing painful about an opinion, simply because it doesn't support yours..


It's painful that you float an idea (that the Pats had a certain record within the division that differed materially vs. the rest of the league), I disprove it, and you refuse to budge and rely on your 'eyes'.

It's intellectually lazy to: 1. Not research an opinion (a statistic, in this case). 2. Refuse to budge once your opinion about said statistic is disproven. 3. Rely on beliefs and 'eyes'.

You're not worth getting into discussions with if you're going to be so fucking stupid.
Just for the sake of argument  
GMANinDC : 11/15/2013 3:33 pm : link
The Eagles were 51-37 against the NFCE under Andy Reid..And they won 7 division titles in 14 years..

Don't know what that all means tho :-)
Facts indicate WHAT numbers are different?  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:35 pm : link
These are facts: The AFC East won only 19% of their games against the Pats during the time span being discussed..

This is an opinion: I do not see teams led by Romo, McNabb and Eli winning only 19% of their games against the Pats during the same time period..

We're not talking every 4 years Pats vs our division, but every year twice a year vs. the Pats..That's an opinion and never an attempt to pass them off as facts..

And you Brett are not worth engaging with  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:37 pm : link
anymore..

Fucking stupid, eh?

Cool..
Brett is right  
Wuphat : 11/15/2013 3:37 pm : link
This is painful.

You clearly have your mind made up and don't care that the winning percentages indicate other than what you're asserting.

That they only play once every 4 years is absolutely immaterial given the data set.
Fine..  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:41 pm : link
This isn't worth it anymore..

I couldn't disagree more and I have given reasons why..They're not right or wrong given that they opinions, conjecture..

The Pats would do just as well playing the same amount of games against the Our division as they would against the AFC East..That's the take of several on here..My opinion differs

BB56  
LG in NYC : 11/15/2013 3:43 pm : link
You seem not to grasp that the differing opinion is based on at least some level of actual facts whereas yours is based on nothing at all, but what you think might happen.

Didn't you do this same level of digging in on another topic about a week or 2 ago and then have to come back and admit you were wrong?

See a pattern?
quick question for Kyle  
RD in CT : 11/15/2013 3:49 pm : link
where were you able to find out the average wins by division?

Just curious what the other divisions have looked like and where the AFC East plays into that at 8-8
LG,  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 3:51 pm : link
I didn't have the facts right on what you're alluding to and so I manned up..

There are no facts at play here when projecting how our division would do against the Pats if we played them as often as the AFC East..Just an opinion based on what I've seen of the AFC East and the NFC East over that time period..

How many thousands of times have people come on here and said, "if the Giants played in the AFC East, they would have a bunch of gimme wins?" That's not fact-based, just opinions given by those who have watched that division vs the Pats each year..

I'm sorry I see no relevance between the Patriots playing the NFC East every 4 years and going 35-5 to what they might do if they had to face us every year..You can't extrapolate that into anything meaningfully fact-based and call it evidence..That's what is being presented here..

Nate Silver can predict elections with amazing accuracy  
Blue Baller : 11/15/2013 3:59 pm : link
with a hell of lot smaller sample size

most statisticians would love to have a 1/8th sample size

Based on the Pats  
LG in NYC : 11/15/2013 3:59 pm : link
winning % against the NFC East every 4 years, plus their overall winning % against the NFC over the past decade (someone posted it earlier and it was outrageously good), there is more "evidence" to suggest the Pats would do just dandy in the NFCE than against it.

But obviously this is an unanswerable question based on your parameters because they do not play in the NFCE.
LG, come on..  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 4:10 pm : link
I'm not talking about the Pats against the rest of the NFC..Only the NFC East and my opinion as to how they'd fare against it..

For years our division was considered the toughest in all of football..Now of course they're not and in the last few years other divisions went from jokes(NFC West, until SF and later Seattle emerged, though Seattle was pretty good at times, NFC south only had the Saints, until Atlanta started doing well when Mike Smith came aboard, The Packers were essentially it, though the Bears had that 2006 season) to being as good as if not better than our division..

So the Pats
RE: quick question for Kyle  
Kyle : 11/15/2013 4:10 pm : link
In comment 11339663 RD in CT said:
Quote:
where were you able to find out the average wins by division?

Just curious what the other divisions have looked like and where the AFC East plays into that at 8-8


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

But you have to comb through the raw data yourself, so you need 5-10 mins of boredom.
Forget the "So the Pats"  
Big Blue '56 : 11/15/2013 4:11 pm : link
at the end of the post
This was so painful  
Berrylish : 11/15/2013 9:46 pm : link
To read.
RE: This year in the NFL  
Mike in Jersey : 11/15/2013 10:02 pm : link
In comment 11339144 MarshallOnMontana said:
Quote:
We have a Denver team on pace to break the scoring record. We have Chief and Panther defenses playing on a historic level through 9 games (not hyperbole, i said historic and meant it). And two of those teams are set to battle twice over the next three weeks at 9-0 and 8-1

You have a Seattle team who will probably go 14-2, 15-1 and finish top 5 on both sides of the ball. You have a New Orleans team who is top 5 on offense and defense and quite possibly better than theyve ever been in this era. The NFC North is incredibly interesting (especially when the QBs are in the lineup). The Pats are the still the Pats even if a marginally watered down version due to injuries.

There is a lot of good football being played in the league this year, a lot of interesting storylines and teams/units worth watching. Its typical though that a fanbase may find themselves a little less excited about a league that their team sucks in. That's natural fan behavior. But the NFL is still incredibly interesting right now


I think the fact that there are so many records in jeopardy of being broken is further evidence that the quality of the average team has declined. The reason that the elite units such as the Denver offense or the Carolina/Kansas City defense are putting up such gaudy numbers is because they are facing off against mediocre oppostition on the other side of the ball week in and week out.
.....  
BrettNYG10 : 11/18/2013 8:59 am : link
Quickly running through the numbers: Since 2005, the NFCE's winning percentage is ~53%, and the winning % vs. non-NFCE opponents is ~55%. Slightly above average - we had a really good division from 2005-2008, though.
So thats better than non-Pats AFCE  
WideRight : 11/18/2013 9:35 am : link
Seems to support BB56. Problem with numbers is that they go both ways. And numbers are facts only in that document what happened, not what would have happened if....

...  
BrettNYG10 : 11/18/2013 10:08 am : link
Well, the best counterpoint would be to see how the Pats did against +.500 teams over the past decade or so. I'm too lazy to do that and couldn't find this data easily.

However, Pro Football Reference has a SoS number for each season. The Patriots average was .2125 (average is zero), and had a below average number in 3 of the past eight seasons. So they've been able to put up their numbers against a harder than average schedule since 2005.
AFC sucks  
spike : 11/18/2013 10:17 am : link
FIVE teams with a winning record at the moment, out of 16

NFC has 8 teams with a winning record
Does the AFC East look weak because they are...  
Hades07 : 11/18/2013 10:39 am : link
...or because the Pats have been so good?

It seems to me that across the NFL, teams play their best football against division opponents. I can't imagine the AFC East is different. In a league of parity, a team that can dominate their division the way the Pats have is an indication of how strong that team is. In the NFC East it seems no matter the record, you know you will see a tough game against the Skins, Eagles or Cowboys.

While I would like to say that I think they would do worse against the NFC East, I can't really believe that. Hard part is you can't really pull out any stats for this to prove wrong or right. I agree with BB'56, this is a opinion based debate, I just don't agree with his opinion.
RE: RE: This year in the NFL  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 1:29 pm : link
In comment 11339987 Mike in Jersey said:
Quote:
In comment 11339144 MarshallOnMontana said:


Quote:


We have a Denver team on pace to break the scoring record. We have Chief and Panther defenses playing on a historic level through 9 games (not hyperbole, i said historic and meant it). And two of those teams are set to battle twice over the next three weeks at 9-0 and 8-1

You have a Seattle team who will probably go 14-2, 15-1 and finish top 5 on both sides of the ball. You have a New Orleans team who is top 5 on offense and defense and quite possibly better than theyve ever been in this era. The NFC North is incredibly interesting (especially when the QBs are in the lineup). The Pats are the still the Pats even if a marginally watered down version due to injuries.

There is a lot of good football being played in the league this year, a lot of interesting storylines and teams/units worth watching. Its typical though that a fanbase may find themselves a little less excited about a league that their team sucks in. That's natural fan behavior. But the NFL is still incredibly interesting right now



I think the fact that there are so many records in jeopardy of being broken is further evidence that the quality of the average team has declined. The reason that the elite units such as the Denver offense or the Carolina/Kansas City defense are putting up such gaudy numbers is because they are facing off against mediocre oppostition on the other side of the ball week in and week out.


So you are essentially arguing against the notion of parity that 90% of people who choose to bash the modern NFL subscribe to. People need to get on the same page with their grievances
and if that comes off dickish  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 1:37 pm : link
my bad, not my intent, i see how it kinda reads snarky though

I think if you analyze that KC defense  
MetsAreBack : 11/18/2013 1:41 pm : link
it's very good - but I do think its hyperbole to talk about them as a 'best ever' candidate.

Maybe you crunched some numbers so statistically that might make sense, but...

Facing Peyton Manning last night (and on a high ankle sprain) was the first starting QB they had faced... since September!

And in September, they faced Jacksonville's powerhouse Blaine Gabbert, our putrid o-line, Vick... I will give them credit for shutting down Romo in their friendly confines.

They did some things well defensively last night - Alex Smith and the offense really stunk (not a surprise)... but still ended up giving up 27 points to an offense at far less than full strength...

Bottom line is its a good defense, but far far far from historically good. My inclination is that Brady, Manning (as he did last night), Brees, Rodgers and others would put up their points against this bunch.
MAB  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 1:43 pm : link
27 points is 2 TDs below Denver's average, and Denver had a couple more drives than they do in a typical game last night given KC's mostly quick possessions.

I never expected them to go out there and hold Denver to 13 points. And if they did, people would be talking about Denvers offense being overrated and not so historical regardless of their numbers. Great O faces a great D, both with crazy expectations, one is going to underachieve relatively. But its not like KC's D wasn't game last night
I do agree though  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 1:46 pm : link
about their level of comp, but the same could be said if you took a fine tooth comb to other great defenses schedule in a single season. Even after last nights game, they're still playing to a +10 above league average in terms of points allowed. That is rare air
and like I said  
MetsAreBack : 11/18/2013 1:48 pm : link
Peyton was far less than 100%. One of the reasons they ran the ball almost 40 times (by the way, Moreno is thoroughly unimpressive....McCoy is right... and Ball should be their guy)

They gave up 27 points... thats a lot of points, moral victory about 2 TDs less than Denver's average that has come against the the likes of the NFC East, Jacksonville, Indy, Oakland, etc or not

I have a hard time believing some of the better defenses in recent memory (Bucs and Ravens, etc).. or even this year's Seahawks or Panthers D's... let alone 'all time greats' would give up 27 points and 450 yards total offense to QB playing with a high ankle sprain.

They've feasted all year on backup QBs and bad teams. I'd be very surprised if that bunch wins a playoff game... albeit the AFC North winner (likely Cincinnati) is pretty weak this year.
The 00 Ravens  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 1:53 pm : link
Gave up 38 to Mark Brunnell, why couldn't they give up 27 to an offense on pace to break the scoring record? And regardless of Manning's ankle, you can';t act like that renders him Ryan Fitzpatrick or something

You also have to take into account era in these things and consider the fact that scoring is up about a FG now from 2000 leaguewide. The 2000 Ravens aren't allowing a mere 10 ppg in the 2013 NFL, not happening. Relative to the league average though, this KC D has been roughly on par with either of those. They will not get that credit unless they win a SB, and they likely won't, precisely because its harder for teams with that profile in this era too. I wouldn't favor either the 02 Bucs or 00 Ravens in this NFL
Anyway, lets see how the final 6 games play out  
MetsAreBack : 11/18/2013 1:53 pm : link
they've got a couple of tests in there - Rivers and a decent SD offensive twice, Indianapolis, Denver again, and RG3 (granted Skins have issues this year, but its still a decent offense)

We'll see their defense get tested a lot more than they did in their first 10 games when they faced QBs named Tuel, Jason Campbell, Blaine Gabbert, Pryor, Fitzpatrick, Vick, Keenum, and our o-line ...
Moreno  
DanMetroMan : 11/18/2013 1:59 pm : link
would be such a lightning rod if he were a Giant. Boring, not a difference maker at all but "consistent" and reliable vs. Ball who shows flashes but is mistake prone.
Correction  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 2:04 pm : link
The Jags hung 36 on the Ravens. I was going off strictly memory without looking it up, for some reason i thought JAX won that game 38-35, turns out they lost 39-36.
This Chief D  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 2:08 pm : link
could be more 99 Bucs than 02 Bucs. Its unlikely they don't have better defenses in this era personnel wise. Its the NFL and injuries yada yada yada.... But the whole core of that defense is either pre prime of mid prime. A couple more moves and they could be even better. Cooper the rookie corner seems like a weak link right now. They could use an upgrade there or have him mature into someone that isn't a weak link
pre prime OR mid prime  
MarshallOnMontana : 11/18/2013 2:09 pm : link
And very interested to see how Carolina handles Brady tonight. Because they've been right there 1/1a with KC defensively
MoM-  
Cam in MO : 11/18/2013 2:10 pm : link
I think that was Tony Bank's best ever game as a QB, lol.

RE: Moreno  
MetsAreBack : 11/18/2013 2:21 pm : link
In comment 11344626 DanMetroMan said:
Quote:
would be such a lightning rod if he were a Giant. Boring, not a difference maker at all but "consistent" and reliable vs. Ball who shows flashes but is mistake prone.


Ball is a rookie though DMM. He can make plays and i didnt think his 'fumble' last night was really his fault... Peyton's exchange was pretty poor on that one.
MAB  
DanMetroMan : 11/18/2013 2:28 pm : link
I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm just saying it sort of seems like the type of situation that would be a big BBI argument "Coughlin needs to use Ball more and not boring Moreno!" and "Ball makes too many mistakes!". Ball is almost certainly the better back.
Back to the Corner