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.
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.