Branch Rickey. I am hoping most of you remember or have heard of Rickey who was GM of Brooklyn back in the day and brought Jackie Robinson to the majors.
Rickey's favourite saying was "You trade a guy (or get rid of a guy) one year too early rather than one year too late".
Belichick has done this numerous times with players...Lawyer Milloy, Richard Seymour, Wes Welker and now Logan Mankins. They will be good for their teams this year but probably gone in a year or so.
And, once again, NE will be one of the top teams in the AFC.
About the OP...
The approach might be smart in some regards but I think you can say it very possibly lost the pats two super bowls.
trading Deion Branch and watching Reche Caldwell drop a TD was one, and Welker knocking out Talib in the AFC Championship game last year was another.
You can argue the second one, maybe, but the game turned on that play and not re-signing Welker fits in with your mantra.
I don't know how much that has to do with a very loose Branch Rickey comparison.
I also think there are far better examples to use than the Patriots when saying they let guys go at the right time. A lot of former Pats (including the players listed in the OP) did very well after leaving the Pats. Meanwhile, the Pats have had guys like Junior Seau, Randy Moss and Chad Johnson at the ends of their careers with unremarkable production.
Yeah Randy Moss really sucked with the Patriots. Three years of over 1,000 yards each. In 2007 that was 1,493 yards and I don't recall how many touchdowns but they went a long way to helping Brady set the record that year. This slacker also caught what could easily have been the winning touchdown in the super bowl. Yeah the Pats regretted the day they signed him.
Quote:
You play in the postseason enough times, you are not going to win at consistently high rates. It is a statistical impossibility.
I have no idea what that means. If you are good enough to be in the postseason, you have a much better chance of postseason success than teams who don't make it.
what does this part about "statistical impossibility" even mean?
Fatman, if you don't understand, there isn't much I can do to help you. It is pretty easy logic to follow.
If you play in the playoffs enough times, you are going to LOSE a fair amount of times. There is no way around this.
Belichick with the Patriots started their postseason career at 10-0. Logic would dictate they were not going to bat 1.000 forever. There is only one place you can go from there and it certainly isn't up.
Almost everything has to go right for a team to win 3 championships in 4 years. Health, a few breaks, a little luck, etc. They pulled it off. At some point, playing more playoff games, that simply was not going to last. Surely you understand that, right? If not, I'm sorry.
A regression was inevitable. It's what happens when you play 25 playoff games. Only in some precincts that is looked at as "The Patriots aren't the same anymore! OMG! WHAT IS WRONG???"
If you are good enough to be in the playoffs every year, then you COULD also be good enough to win as many times as possible. You might lose some, but statistically, you can't say that everyone will eventually come back to the median. That would only hold true if everyone had the same talent.
Just like you can't assume that 1000 years from now the Yankees and Cubs should have the same amount of World Series titles.
It is a flawed argument, and there is nothing statistically to back it up. Nobody said he would go undefeated in the postseason.
So how many MORE games should they have won? 80 percent? 70 percent? In an NFL, where the margin between the teams most of us agree (I don't know if you do) is very slim ("parity" as they call it), to sustain that incredible pace of winning one game eliminations, is extremely difficult.
If they would have "spread out their Super Bowl wins" as one gasbag suggested on TV the other day, would it look better? Would this same argument be going on?
It's like the folks who argue the Yankees should have won 2 or 3 more World Series in the last 10 years. They won 5 of them.
Again, winning is hard. How is this is a difficult concept to grasp?
It is NOT a statistical impossibility. It is a statistical improbability.
Quote:
You play in the postseason enough times, you are not going to win at consistently high rates. It is a statistical impossibility.
It is NOT a statistical impossibility. It is a statistical improbability.
That is your opinion. No one has done it. You seem to think it's possible. Based on history, I don't know where you conclude that.
Feel free to play the word game pissing contest if you want.
Joe Gibbs had a 70% career winning percentage over 24 games. Chuck Noll was 66% over 24 games. Coughlin is 63% over 19 games. Bill Walsh was 71% over 14 games.
Those are high rates.
Sorry if you don't like "a word pissing contest", but saying something is statistically impossible is just a flat-out ignorant thing to say.
Also, we've had plenty of bad teams throughout the NFC East over the past couple of decades. But haven't the Bills and Dolphins been pretty pathetic since Kelly and Marino? And the Jets? Yeah, I know they made it to two conference championship games, but even when they've been good, I don't remember once in my life thinking the Jets had the best team in the NFL.
I think Belichick is a great coach, no doubt about that. But, he won with the Giants with some legendary HOF talent on the field, HOF H/C, GM and ownership. With the Pats he has probably the best QB in the history of the game. And, I think the Pats have played in one of the weakest divisions in the league. Please, don't get me wrong, Belichick is an all time great coach, but he's had some fairly good situations with some really great players, coaches and personnel around him.
And I definitely don't think the AFC East and NFC East have been equally good over the past one or two decades.
Also, we've had plenty of bad teams throughout the NFC East over the past couple of decades. But haven't the Bills and Dolphins been pretty pathetic since Kelly and Marino? And the Jets? Yeah, I know they made it to two conference championship games, but even when they've been good, I don't remember once in my life thinking the Jets had the best team in the NFL.
I think Belichick is a great coach, no doubt about that. But, he won with the Giants with some legendary HOF talent on the field, HOF H/C, GM and ownership. With the Pats he has probably the best QB in the history of the game. And, I think the Pats have played in one of the weakest divisions in the league. Please, don't get me wrong, Belichick is an all time great coach, but he's had some fairly good situations with some really great players, coaches and personnel around him.
And I definitely don't think the AFC East and NFC East have been equally good over the past one or two decades.
Check out the sagarin ratings on USA today, they're there all the way back to like 2007 and he creates a scientific formula to rank the divisions based on a number of factors.
the NFC East hasn't had a dominant team, but the Giants won two SB's in Belichick's tenure and the Eagles went to 4(?) AFC championship games. The Patriots won 3 SB's, lost 2, and the Jets went to two AFC championship games. The dolphons made the playoffs once or twice and so did the 'skins, so in the end the Patriots overall dominance against their division rivals weights things differently and it comes out as the divisions, from top to bottom when ranked versus all the divisions are pretty close.
should ssy
Eagles went to 4(?) NFC...
Before last year, against the NFC the Pats lost 1 game at home since 2001 (to the Giants) That's like 20 - 1.
Tom Brady is 38 - 11 against the NFC.
While he's 59 - 15 vs the AFC East, he's:
18 - 5 vs AFC North
18 - 5 vs AFC South
10 - 2 vs NFC East
11 - 1 vs NFC North
9 - 3 vs NFC South
8 - 4 vs NFC West
Worst record:
14 - 9 vs AFC West
The Pats dominance pushes lower the success of the other teams in the division.
Otherwise, you'd expect to see the Pats dominate their division, but just do ok elsewhere, that's not the case.
the Pats are beating up everyone, not just their division.
Link - ( New Window )
It's not, but all four teams (the Skins very briefly) have been competitive for stretches over the last dozen or so years. The Bills and the Dolphins haven't been and the Jets were for a relatively brief period too.
Exactly. We had a really good division in 2005-2008, but those days are gone.
What Giant fan couldn't like Belichick, he's part of our glory years, possibly the best Head Coach in the history of the game. Just thank him and be on your way...
i get it, the Pats are a great franchise, and I'm not trying to take that away from them. I'm not saying the NFC East is the end-all-be-all of pro-football. But, on balance, anecdotally, as a pretty avid fan, and fully admitting my bias, I don't think the AFC East has been as good as the NFC East over the past ten to twenty years.
I really think you need to go back to Kelly and Marino to find a contender in the that division other than the Pats. The Jets have been okay under Ryan, but they haven't had a team that was dominate or even "the team to beat". (Unless of course you were asking Rex Ryan).
The Dolphins in that tenure also had 1 division win, 2 playoff appearances, and no wins.
the success over the tenure is comparable.
But the records are probably the same (W/L)
the cowboys have 1 playoff win, 4 appearances.
The Jets have 6 playoff appearances, 2 AFC Championship game appearances and 6 playoff victories
the Bills awfulness is offset by the Pats greatness.
Bills - goose egg
Pats 11 playoff appearances, 3 SB wins, 8 conference championship games, 18 playoff wins.
we know about the eagles and giants, the conferences from top to bottom aren't that different.
Agreed. Swap out the Pats and Giants and I'd bet both teams have similar results over the preceding five years. Perhaps a win more, on average, for the Giants and one less for the Patriots, but the results wouldn't be extreme IMO.
So, I'm not buying the argument. I think the Pats have been the only solid contenders in the AFC East since Belichick got there. That's mostly a testament to Hoodie's greatness but it must be mentioned that he's feasted on weak competition.
The Dolphins in that tenure also had 1 division win, 2 playoff appearances, and no wins.
the success over the tenure is comparable.
But the records are probably the same (W/L)
the cowboys have 1 playoff win, 4 appearances.
The Jets have 6 playoff appearances, 2 AFC Championship game appearances and 6 playoff victories
the Bills awfulness is offset by the Pats greatness.
Bills - goose egg
Pats 11 playoff appearances, 3 SB wins, 8 conference championship games, 18 playoff wins.
we know about the eagles and giants, the conferences from top to bottom aren't that different.
Have to disagree, my friend..Regardless of how we're presently perceived(the division, that is), the NFC East has always been a battle for the Giants as well as for other teams facing each other in the division..No matter how good we were or no matter how competitive we've been, breaking even at 3-3 within the division was always a bare minimum goal for us fans. I suspect for the teams within the division as well..
Forget who made or has won in the division a playoff game..During the season our division has always been a war between each other..The Pats had little problems within their division..With some exceptional games at times, that division was a cakewalk for the Pats. They had little to no "wars" within..
No disagreement there, but they have toyed with those in their division since Brady got there. Even without Brady, they still finished 11-5 and only a fluke caused them tomiss the playoffs..
I think Eli, TC & Co would have better record playing against the Bills, Jets and Phish. I think Hoodie, Brady & Co have less success against the Washington team, the Cowboys and the Iggles.
Sorry, all kidding aside, I know the Jets have a good D under Ryan, but its been a *good* D and hasn't been a *great* D on par with the all time great defenses. Aside from D, and sometimes including the D, the Jets are joke franchise. The Bills and the Phish are just as bad, often worse, just not ever as entertaining.
Say what you like about the Washington team, they spend a lot of money and they do try to win. They've been the weakest team in the division during the timeframe we're debating. Dallas has had Blomo, who's way better than anyone in the AFC East, aside from Tom Brady, for at least 25 years. Iggles have Folley who had a better season last year than any qb, other than Brady, in the AFC for at least 25 years. Iggles had McNabb, who was pretty darn good. I think the NFC defenses have been as good, often better, than any D in the AFC East during the time frame we're debating.
I see what you did there. Great stuff!
Yes, but three of those not-below-.500 seasons for the Cowboys were 8-8, while three of the seven sub-.500 seasons for the Dolphins were 7-9. Not much of a distinction to be made there.
The Cowboys have been the more competitive team in that time frame, but only marginally so.
I see what you did there. Great stuff!
I was going to go with "Blomo and Tom Petty"...
The idea that the reason the Patriots are good every year is because they play in the AFC East is BS. Since 2004 in the regular season the Patriots are 124 and 36 which is a 78% winning percentage. In that time, their record vs non AFC East teams is 76 and 24 (76%). Vs teams in the AFC East they are 48 and 12 (80%). That's hardly a noticeable difference. If the Patriots had won at the rate they won vs non-AFC East teams since 2004 they would have one only 12.2 games per season compared to the 12.4 games they actually won. Again, not a significant difference and surely not enough to chalk up Belichick's success to playing in the AFC East.
By comparison, over the same period (since 2004), the Giants are 90 and 70 (56.3%). Vs teams outside of the NFC East they are 56 and 44 (56%) and vs the NFC East they are 34 & 26 (56.7%).
It is similar to the Colts recently decimating the AFC South the Niners in the 80's plowing through the west or the Cowboys in the 70's plowing through the East. When you have multiple weak teams in a division (2 or more), it makes it much easier for a dominant team to win.
It is similar to the Colts recently decimating the AFC South the Niners in the 80's plowing through the west or the Cowboys in the 70's plowing through the East. When you have multiple weak teams in a division (2 or more), it makes it much easier for a dominant team to win.
You just disregarded the numbers. Over the past 10 seasons the Patriots have virtually the same winning percentage vs the rest of the league as they do vs the AFC East.
Like I said - it is less about the Pats strength and more about the rest of the division's weakness. The teams I mentioned above (Colts, Niners and Cowboys) also had similar records vs. non-divisional opponents as they did divisional ones.
The Pats have been great. Yes. But, how can anyone really dismiss the fact that the Pats feast on three historically lousy teams twice a season?
Further, how can anyone argue that the AFC East and the NFC East have been on the same par during the Belicheck Brady years. I just don't see it.
The Pats have been great. Yes. But, how can anyone really dismiss the fact that the Pats feast on three historically lousy teams twice a season?
Further, how can anyone argue that the AFC East and the NFC East have been on the same par during the Belicheck Brady years. I just don't see it.
I wonder when the last time was that any team in our division had a 78% winning pct within the division over a 10 plus season span
The Pats have been great. Yes. But, how can anyone really dismiss the fact that the Pats feast on three historically lousy teams twice a season?
Further, how can anyone argue that the AFC East and the NFC East have been on the same par during the Belicheck Brady years. I just don't see it.
What you don't understand is because you're not really reading and you're factually incorrect.
during the Belichick era the Jets made the playoffs on 6 occasions and went to the AFC CG twice. That's making the playoffs almost 50% of the time. historically bad? really?
The Dolphins made the playoffs twice in that tenure with one division win.
what is historically bad about that?
The Bills have been brutal, but some of that gets offset by how good the Pats have been.
If you took those three teams (Jets, Dolphins and Bills, and swapped their divisions with the Eagles, Cowboys, and Redskins respectively) you'd probably get the same results.
but that's speculation, the facts should be enough to help you understand though.
All that written, and among other things, I would posit that you've ignored my hypothetical. What if the Pats played in the NFC East? I don't think they would have fared as well as they did playing in the AFC East.
Maybe try this: if the Pats and Giants are similar over the years, how do the other teams match up? You're saying the Jets and the Iggles are on par for the past 25 years or even just during the Belicheck years? Yeah, I don't see that. You're saying the Dolphins and the Cowboys are on par over the years? Don't see that either. The Washington team and the Bills? Nope - don't see that either. We've had our ups and downs in the NFC East, but I don't think we have any historically or unusually bad franchises.
I guess you're saying the Dolphins aren't an unusually bad team since Marino? Again, I would disagree. I can't think of one season since Marino left when anyone thought the Phish were contenders. Same for the Bills since Kelly & co and Marv retired. Same for the Jets since except for maybe that season when Tuna was H/C and they lost their starting QB in the first game. But, yeah, the Jets fully qualify as a unusually bad NFL franchise in my book.
how many teams have been to two AFC Championship games and made 6 playoff appearances in that time frame? The Jets are one of probably 5 teams at most to accomplish that.
The Patriots dominance outside their division and outside their conference combined with your underestimation of the AFC east as a whole should clarify it for you.
either way, we can just agree to disagree on this.
Like I said, I'm biased. One of the things that kills me about the Jets, and their fans, is how they always cite the two AFC Championship game appearances. Again, I'm biased, but I never thought the Jets belonged in those games and I certainly never thought they would win either of those games. And I damn never thought they'd win one of those games and then go on to win the Super Bowl. The fact is that the Jets lost two AFC Championship games. But, alright, they got there and that's not so bad. I guess.
Some of this is fun to think about. Imagine if Brady had to have faced our pass rush over his career? And he had to face Jimmy Johnson's blitzing Iggles? And he had to face Demarcus Ware twice a year for his career? Anyway, taking nothing away from Brady, who I think probably is the best QB ever, he'd have gotten his W's and put up great numbers no matter where he played.
Simply quoting statistics vs. the rest of the league doesn't mean a whole lot. when you have one team winning more than 70% of their divisional games over a period of time, they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, just like the colts of the last 15 years, the 80's Niners, the 70's cowboys were.
Meanwhile, if you look at a division like the NFC south where a new team seems to take the division crown every year, what you end up having is a sustained competitive environment, even if the teams who are poor change each year.
I tend to look at the NFC east as being mediocre - no great teams and no really poor teams. You really can't quantify how that kind of division compares with statistics. The Bills are the team with the longest playoff drought in the NFL. The Pats are one of the most successful teams in that time. I'm pretty sure the two are somewhat related. Meanwhile in some other divisions you have rotating leaders and no sustained great team. trying to say one is better than the other is hard to do.
you pretty much can say with a great deal of confidence who is winning the AFC East every year. Try doing that for the NFC East or South.