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.
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.
that will surely increase quality of play...
(not to mention the transformation of the league into arena ball)
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.
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.
Greater roster turnover + less real practice team = poor play
AFC South = .368 winning ratio, 14-24
NFC East = .421 winning ratio, 16-22
The NFC south isn't far behind.
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.
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.
AFC Central as well for the Steelers with again, few exceptions
That's a pretty odd standard. It's hard to imagine any league in any sport being "good" by those standards.
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
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.
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)
2011: 3-1 (lost to us)
2007: 4-0
2003: 4-0
2011 our division was very similar to the pathetic AFC East I alluded to for well over a decade
It was their last loss of the season.
So, one of your years is wrong.
Make it 3-1 in 2003.
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?
I can't believe I ever had credibility. I'm... flattered.
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.
also seems to be the culprit with rash of injuries.
I'm a failure. I deserve it. I'm a fraud.
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.
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.
How many special teams gaffes can one watch? It's been a blooper reel year
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..
Eliminating those games because the Pats are always destroying the whole NFL, the AFC East is, on average, 8-8.
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)
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?
You're on your own.
So, even though the Pats have the best coach in the league they'd be at a disadvantage when they play teams more frequently?
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.
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
No, I understand what you're saying just fine. It's not backed up by anything than your misguided beliefs.
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..
If I have time, I'll look at their record against division winners, etc. They've beaten much better competition than the NFCE.
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
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.
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.
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 there now football hipsters?
Was that NFL network hipster commercial guy a stroke of brilliant foresight?
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
And then they're going to do it again in two weeks.
Motherfuckers get killed for comments like that.
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
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:
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..
Quote:
always has been.
Motherfuckers get killed for comments like that.
LMAO
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..
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.
You forgot to add:
Despite the facts indicate otherwise.
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
What possible rationale would there be for that point? Everything other than your hopes and dreams indicates otherwise thus far.
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.
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.
Don't know what that all means tho :-)
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..
Fucking stupid, eh?
Cool..
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.
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
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?
Just curious what the other divisions have looked like and where the AFC East plays into that at 8-8
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..
most statisticians would love to have a 1/8th sample size
But obviously this is an unanswerable question based on your parameters because they do not play in the NFCE.
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
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.
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.
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.
NFC has 8 teams with a winning record
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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 ...
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.