Let's say BB stays on until he retires. What does that mean for the franchise?

[SMU_Sox]

That defense was missing Hightower due to injury, and the Patriots do not win Super Bowls without him. They won a SB without Gronk, but not without Hightower.

Agreed. One of my favorite coaches on twitter talks about how Hightower was one of the best linebackers of the last decade and super underappreciated. He is not a Patriots fan either. I've heard this sentiment from other coaches. I know, for example, Coach Vass holds Hightower in high regards. This was their defensive snaps from that game. Pretty bad:


5 guys you either got off the street or from the scrap heap and Jordan Richards *shudders* playing a lot of reps in that game. I am not sure if Hightower changes the math there but in theory he would have helped with two things 1) pass rush, and 2) run defense. He would have been one of the ILBs scraping and plugging and taking on their OL who dominated the Patriots DTs. In a game where even one extra stop could have meant a win I might buy that Hightower playing would have changed their fate. They desperately needed help with both pass rush and run defense in that game too.

 

[SMU_Sox]

While I agree with your take in total, the bolded has been a recurring problem. For the life of me, I don't know why he doesn't draft or otherwise acquire enough OL. Seems like we always have exactly five starters, one worthwhile backup, a couple of projects, and a jag or two. Once a guy goes down, the line is a little compromised. Once it's two guys, it's like a screen door on a submarine. I mean, it's great that he has a DL/OLB rotation that runs so deep that he can swap them out like a hockey line change all game, but ffs we're always two injuries away from a traffic cone at guard or tackle. It seems like it's been like that for a dozen years, but we've been lucky enough to avoid getting burned by it sometimes.

edit: it pisses me off that he lets big FAs walk and only then drops a high pick on a guy, basically treading water. Not enough pipeline imo.

You, me, @Super Nomario, and @Shelterdog all mentioned the offensive line in depth last off-season. I know some others did too. I think you raise a good point. What happened this off-season? Well they drafted Hines and Steuber late and I really liked Hines. Hines reminded me on tape a lot of Onwenu. Unfortunately both of those guys were hurt. Steuber was tough but his lack of athleticism showed up. Still, I think had Hines been healthy they might have been able to use Strange or Hines as backup Cs too. That might be a stretch but Hines started his career at LSU as a center in 2019 and had cross-training there. Strange took reps at the senior bowl as a center and some thought that would end up being his best position in the NFL. They could have drafted other offensive lineman who can play OT:

Spoiler

Like Zach Tom, Abe Lucas, Thayor Munford, Tyler Smith, Bernhard Raimann, Max Mitchell, etc. These guys went on day 1, 2, and 3 of the draft and all have played OT better than Wynn this year. Zach Tom played... I think 4/5 or 5/5 positions on the line. He might have been a little small for them but I loved him and he's really played well in just five games for the Packers this year at OT (86th on my board//3rd highest of all the evaluators). That's still not a lot of guys though, right? All of them had warts and I am not sure they were ideal fits for the Pats. So the Pats skipped over OT in the draft unless you count Steuber.

Trading Herron and cutting most of the guys they had on their depth chart minus Cajuste to start the season was a curious decision. Cajuste had some consistently nice reps as a run blocker but got smoked too often in pass pro. Not having Hines and cutting the other backup IOL meant James Ferentz had to start. Ferentz has been decent in pass protection but he's a horrendous liability as a run blocker. They are lucky nothing has happened to Strange or Onwenu. They have no good depth. Why did they cut or trade everyone?

I heard this from Lazar on the Patriots Unfiltered pod and one of the other hosts seemed to confirm and say they do this kind of stuff (as in they did it to David Andrews) I am about to detail. So the Patriots initially offered Ted Karras 3/15 and he got an offer for 3/18 from CIN. Ted (or his agent) called them and asked if they could bridge it a little bit. They reduced their offer. Now typically the Patriots have gone with more athletic LGs in Bill's history but Andrews is getting up there and has some injury history and health concerns and Karras can also play OC. Instead of keeping Ted at LG they let him walk, traded back, and drafted Cole Strange. Strange has not been good this year. I liked Cole Strange. I had a 2nd/3rd round kind of grade on him. I was worried about his pass pro and starting right away. This was not a great year for offensive line in the draft. Also, Cole could still turn out to be a solid LG. It's hard to redo your pass pro from the ground up year 1.

Overall offensive tackle was thin at the top and middle of the draft. Guard was also thin at the top and middle of the draft. Imagine had they kept Karras at LG trading back, drafting Christian Watson in the late first, taking an OT in the 2nd or trading back again and drafting one in the third. I don't love playing what if games with the draft but when you look at what they did with their OL and what they could have done? It's hard not to. Or maybe they draft a guy in the 2nd or 3rd to play OG but to be fair most of the other rookie guards including the first round guys have really struggled this year. It's hard to play OL in the NFL. It took stud Andrew Thomas 3 years to get really good. There is such a huge difference between the quality of pass rushers and their moves and the games defenses play vs colleges.

This off-season though they better invest in FA and the draft. Broderick Jones ought to be available where they are picking and he looks like he would be an average OT.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

And I put those 9 seasons in context, but you ignored it. You don’t want to discuss this. You have a POV and it’s not changing. That’s cool. Doesn’t mean it’s correct.

You believe that you did, but that context is asinine. The circumstances you describe are “the situations HCs inherit in the NFL.”.

Listen, Bill Belichick may do amazing the next 3-4 years and you can feel great as he beats Shula’s record and more.

My hypothesis, and it seems to be playing out, is that he is going to win 6-9 games a season and won’t win a playoff game because Brady and a weak division forgave a lot of weaknesses as a head of football for many seasons. He has earned that right to surpass Shula in NE though, IMO.

 

[BaseballJones]

because Brady and a weak division forgave a lot of weaknesses as a head of football for many seasons.

1. What weaknesses did BB have during the Pats' unreal 20-year run? (I'm not saying he didn't have any; I just want you to identify them. You said he had "a lot" of them.)

2. Please tell me you're not buying the tired and false trope that the AFCE was a "weak" division. During the TB/BB dynasty, the AFCE was a thoroughly average division if you take the Pats out of it. It wasn't a powerhouse outside the Pats, but it wasn't weak either. This isn't speculation. The work has been done on this.

 

[lexrageorge]

1. What weaknesses did BB have during the Pats' unreal 20-year run? (I'm not saying he didn't have any; I just want you to identify them. You said he had "a lot" of them.)

2. Please tell me you're not buying the tired and false trope that the AFCE was a "weak" division. During the TB/BB dynasty, the AFCE was a thoroughly average division if you take the Pats out of it. It wasn't a powerhouse outside the Pats, but it wasn't weak either. This isn't speculation. The work has been done on this.

He's not arguing in good faith. The draft picks and free agent signings Belichick hit on are due to luck, so only the busts count. His argument is no different than taking away all the games in which David Ortiz hit a home run and using the resulting slugging percentage to claim he wasn't a good hitter.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

1. What weaknesses did BB have during the Pats' unreal 20-year run? (I'm not saying he didn't have any; I just want you to identify them. You said he had "a lot" of them.)

2. Please tell me you're not buying the tired and false trope that the AFCE was a "weak" division. During the TB/BB dynasty, the AFCE was a thoroughly average division if you take the Pats out of it. It wasn't a powerhouse outside the Pats, but it wasn't weak either. This isn't speculation. The work has been done on this.

The AFCE was historically bad outside of the Patriots during the dynasty. There has never, in the modern era been three teams who failed to win 10+ games in a season with the frequency they did for such a long period (Even 9+) Find me any division in any period where three of the four teams played as poorly for 15-20 seasons. Heck, wven 10. You won’t find it. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills had onesy twosey seasons where they were in that 10+ win group, but outside of the Rex Ryan Jets, the Pats were in historically atrocious company.

This, and the one playoff win on 9 season, are just stated facts.

As for the “what were his weaknesses” question, I don’t know nor does it matter. What was Gus Bradley’s weakness in Jacksonville? What was Marv Levy’s weakness in Buffalo? No one cares. I don’t care to debate draft, FA, or coaching strategy as much of that is shades of gray.

The question on the table was basically should Belichick remain. My opinion is that he should if he wants, he has earned it. But the results will not be good.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

He's not arguing in good faith. The draft picks and free agent signings Belichick hit on are due to luck, so only the busts count. His argument is no different than taking away all the games in which David Ortiz hit a home run and using the resulting slugging percentage to claim he wasn't a good hitter.

I’m definitely using data, and I get where that troubles you deeply.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The AFCE was historically bad outside of the Patriots during the dynasty. There has never, in the modern era been three teams who failed to win 10+ games in a season with the frequency they did for such a long period (Even 9+) Find me any division in any period where three of the four teams played as poorly for 15-20 seasons. Heck, wven 10. You won’t find it. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills had onesy twosey seasons where they were in that 10+ win group, but outside of the Rex Ryan Jets, the Pats were in historically atrocious company.

This, and the one playoff win on 9 season, are just stated facts.

As for the “what were his weaknesses” question, I don’t know nor does it matter. What was Gus Bradley’s weakness in Jacksonville? What was Marv Levy’s weakness in Buffalo? No one cares. I don’t care to debate draft, FA, or coaching strategy as much of that is shades of gray.

The question on the table was basically should Belichick remain. My opinion is that he should if he wants, he has earned it. But the results will not be good.

We've mentioned this about a million times: the Pats' winning percentage within the division during the Brady years was the same as their winning percentage outside of the division. The division looked bad because the Pats kicked the shit out of the division 6 times a year. But the Pats kicked the shit out of everybody.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

We've mentioned this about a million times: the Pats' winning percentage within the division during the Brady years was the same as their winning percentage outside of the division. The division looked bad because the Pats kicked the shit out of the division 6 times a year. But the Pats kicked the shit out of everybody.

You are confounding your arguments.

The Patriots winning percentage is not a statement of quality of the division. It is a statement that “the Patriots won at a comparable rate outside the division ergo they were a good football twam, not only beating up on their division.”

But the overall number of games won by the other three teams was, point of fact, historically low. And the failure to win 10 games at any meaningdul frequency for so long helps the Patriots make the playoffs because that ia how the playoffs work.

Again, this is data. Look at other divisions over the years, I think it will click.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

You're hung up on the 10 games data point when the strength of the Patriots was the reason no other teams in the division regularly won 10 games.

If the division was overly weak, then we'd expect the Patriots to have a worse winning percentage outside the division as they would be playing better opponents. That was not the case. If the Pats were winning at the same rate inside the division and out, then really, talking about the strength of the division is pointless because it had zero effect on the Patriots' success.

 

[Shelterdog]

He's not arguing in good faith. The draft picks and free agent signings Belichick hit on are due to luck, so only the busts count. His argument is no different than taking away all the games in which David Ortiz hit a home run and using the resulting slugging percentage to claim he wasn't a good hitter.

What has BB ever done? I mean aside from the roughly 20 years with Brady, what else has he done?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

 

[Ralphwiggum]

My hypothesis, and it seems to be playing out, is that he is going to win 6-9 games a season and won’t win a playoff game because Brady and a weak division forgave a lot of weaknesses as a head of football for many seasons. He has earned that right to surpass Shula in NE though, IMO.

This particular piece of bullshit has been discussed and debunked in this forum like a million times. But you keep doing you.

 

[Shaky Walton]

I'll answer the question in the thread header. It's possible BB no longer throws his best fastball. But his best fastball was like 103 with movement. Maybe it's down to 99 with movement. Still ridiculously good, if maybe not as good as it once was.

What has Bill has done over the last few years to make you conclude that his fastball is still ridiculously good?

I see a HC/Grand Poo Bah who:

Failed to hire the right guys to run his offense.

Who has watched his "coordinators" continually call third down plays with passes before the sticks and are absurdly predictable.

Who has seen his QB perform materially worse as a second year player.

Arguably mishandled the situation with Zappe and Jones when Jones was able to return such that the absolute shit show and circus ensued during the Bears game.

Has not seen his team beat any good team this season. (Would they have beaten the Jets if someone other than Zach Wilson was starting? Or the Colts with Matt Ryan?)

Has not won a playoff game since Tom left.

Alienated Tom and Gronk with some of his decision making, including the petty removal of Alex Guerrero from the sideline, etc.

Was overly conservative in not going for it in OT against the Packers and at other times on 4th and short.

Presided over several drafts that were complete whiffs (although since Caserio left, the drafts have gotten much better, thankfully).
~~~

Make no mistake, I would not fire Bill. I think the "they have not won without Tom and therefore Bill isn't special" argument is artful yet obvious trolling.

But I wish I could grade him like you have for the last several years. To me, he's been materially worse that "ridiculously good."

Tell me why I am wrong.

 

[lexrageorge]

You are confounding your arguments.

The Patriots winning percentage is not a statement of quality of the division. It is a statement that “the Patriots won at a comparable rate outside the division ergo they were a good football twam, not only beating up on their division.”

But the overall number of games won by the other three teams was, point of fact, historically low. And the failure to win 10 games at any meaningdul frequency for so long helps the Patriots make the playoffs because that ia how the playoffs work.

Again, this is data. Look at other divisions over the years, I think it will click.

2001: Jets and Dolphins both earn wild card berths.
2002: Jets win 3-way tie breaker to clinch division at 9-7 and romp over the Peyton Mannings in the wild card round.
2003: Dolphins lose tie breaker at 10-6, in no small part by losing twice to the Pats.
2004: Jets earn wild card and beat Chargers in first round.
2005: 9-7 Dolphins miss wild card.
2006: 10-6 Mangini Jets earn wild card and lose to Pats in opening round.
2007: Division wasn't good (7-9 Bills finished 2nd), but really didn't matter for obvious reasons.
2008: Pats become first 11-5 team to miss playoffs, while Dolphins win divisional tie breaker.
2009: 9-7 Jets earn wild card and visit AFC Championship Game
2010: 11-5 Jets earn wild card and visit AFC Championship Game
2011: Not a good year for AFC East, with Jets going 8-8.
2012: Again, with Dolphins going 7-9.
2013: Jets/Dolphins tie for 2nd at 8-8 and miss playoffs.
2014: Bills go 9-7, even beating the Pats in a meaningless finale, but miss playoffs.
2015: Jets miss playoffs at 10-6. They actually made a strong run at the end, beating the Pats in OT, but lost to the Bills the final week.
2016: Dolphins clinch wild card at 10-6.
2017: Bills earn wild card at 9-7
2018: 7-9 Dolphins are in 2nd.
2019: Bills go 10-6 and earn wild card berth.

I count 5 years (2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018) where the division was not all that competitive record-wise, which is really not atypical at all. What was atypical was the fact the Pats won the division in all but 2 of those years.

What the division did lack was probably a 2nd true powerhouse team (realignment robbed the AFC East of a twice yearly Manning/Brady matchup), although the 2010 Jets were a legit Lombardi contender. But there were plenty of conference contenders that earned the powerhouse moniker in the AFC, and more often than not the Pats beat them, sometimes quite handily.

 

[johnmd20]

This forum was better when it didn’t have trolls.

 

[tims4wins]

2001: Jets and Dolphins both earn wild card berths.
2002: Jets win 3-way tie breaker to clinch division at 9-7 and romp over the Peyton Mannings in the wild card round.
2003: Dolphins lose tie breaker at 10-6, in no small part by losing twice to the Pats.
2004: Jets earn wild card and beat Chargers in first round.
2005: 9-7 Dolphins miss wild card.
2006: 10-6 Mangini Jets earn wild card and lose to Pats in opening round.
2007: Division wasn't good (7-9 Bills finished 2nd), but really didn't matter for obvious reasons.
2008: Pats become first 11-5 team to miss playoffs, while Dolphins win divisional tie breaker.
2009: 9-7 Jets earn wild card and visit AFC Championship Game
2010: 11-5 Jets earn wild card and visit AFC Championship Game
2011: Not a good year for AFC East, with Jets going 8-8.
2012: Again, with Dolphins going 7-9.
2013: Jets/Dolphins tie for 2nd at 8-8 and miss playoffs.
2014: Bills go 9-7, even beating the Pats in a meaningless finale, but miss playoffs.
2015: Jets miss playoffs at 10-6. They actually made a strong run at the end, beating the Pats in OT, but lost to the Bills the final week.
2016: Dolphins clinch wild card at 10-6.
2017: Bills earn wild card at 9-7
2018: 7-9 Dolphins are in 2nd.
2019: Bills go 10-6 and earn wild card berth.

I count 5 years (2007, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018) where the division was not all that competitive record-wise, which is really not atypical at all. What was atypical was the fact the Pats won the division in all but 2 of those years.

What the division did lack was probably a 2nd true powerhouse team (realignment robbed the AFC East of a twice yearly Manning/Brady matchup), although the 2010 Jets were a legit Lombardi contender. But there were plenty of conference contenders that earned the powerhouse moniker in the AFC, and more often than not the Pats beat them, sometimes quite handily.

To pile on, it's not like the Pats were ever backing into the playoffs with lousy records. They were winning 12-14 games annually. They never won the division via any sort of tiebreak to my knowledge.

They also only earned, on average, ~4.5 wins per year out of their ~12 wins per year during this run. They were basically going 4.5-1.5 in the division and 7.5-2.5 outside of the division annually.

Fully agree with the point of a lack of 2nd powerhouse team. They were never in a situation like the Ravens-Steelers or Colts-Titans or whatever other examples there were. This DID help them earn more byes via not having another team truly compete for a division title. It did NOT help them make the playoffs. But when you add in the byes, that helped lead to the AFCCGs, which helped lead to the titles.

 

[Leather]

Yes! But in my 9 years piece those are years where Brady wasn’t even on the roster. It’s a weird view of the world, but 9 years - going on 10 - is a pretty long HC career. You can look at it as its own thing.

But it's disingenuous to throw it out there without any context.

In 1991, his first stint, he inherited a Browns team that went 3-13 in 1990, and got them into the playoffs in 1994.

In 2000, he took over for a Patriots team that went 8-8 in 1999 and admittedly had some good players on it, and *won the Super Bowl* in 2001 (etc...).

In 2008, his All World QB was injured in the first game and the backup brought them within a tiebreaker of the playoffs.

In 2020, after his All World QB whom the entire team was built around left after 2019, he got them back into the playoffs in 2021.


In isolation, each of those performances is solid if not excellent. It's not like he had 9 consecutive years to build a contender and is .500 over that stint.

 

[tims4wins]

But it's disingenuous to throw it out there without any context.

In 1991, his first stint, he inherited a Browns team that went 3-13 in 1990, and got them into the playoffs in 1994.

In 2000, he took over for a Patriots team that went 8-8 in 1999 and admittedly had some good players on it, and *won the Super Bowl* in 2001 (etc...).

In 2008, his All World QB was injured in the first game and the backup brought them within a tiebreaker of the playoffs.

In 2020, after his All World QB whom the entire team was built around left after 2019, he got them back into the playoffs in 2021.


In isolation, each of those performances is solid if not excellent. It's not like he had 9 consecutive years to build a contender and is .500 over that stint.

Also went 3-1 with Jimmy and Jacoby in 2016. One of those wins was on the road against a team that went to the NFC Championship game the year before. Another of those wins was against a perennial playoff team (including that season) where his QB had a broken thumb.

 

[BaseballJones]

The AFCE was historically bad outside of the Patriots during the dynasty.

That's simply not true. At all. Again, not an opinion - the actual work has been done on this.

There has never, in the modern era been three teams who failed to win 10+ games in a season with the frequency they did for such a long period (Even 9+) Find me any division in any period where three of the four teams played as poorly for 15-20 seasons. Heck, wven 10. You won’t find it. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills had onesy twosey seasons where they were in that 10+ win group, but outside of the Rex Ryan Jets, the Pats were in historically atrocious company.

This, and the one playoff win on 9 season, are just stated facts.

As for the “what were his weaknesses” question, I don’t know nor does it matter.

You just claimed that Brady + a "weak division" covered up for "a lot" of Belichick's weaknesses. Please show your work on what BB's weaknesses were.

 

[BigJimEd]

This forum was better when it didn’t have trolls.

+1. Time to avoid this thread and probably forum for a while.

 

[SMU_Sox]

This forum was better when it didn’t have trolls.

I have only blocked maybe 2 people here but I agree with you and I exercised that option on the obvious troll here. I don’t take blocking anyone lightly and I like this forum a lot. I see post after post arguing with someone who is only disturbing the flow here.

+1. Time to avoid this thread and probably forum for a while.

Been here since like 2009 and lurked for 2-3 years before that. Never advocated for blocking anyone but in this case I would hate to see you and others go when we can all decide to just ignore the obvious troll is obvious.

 

[BaseballJones]

Ok so I just spent the last 15 minutes putting this together, and @Rick Burlesons Yam Bag - this isn't going to be pretty for you. Like, at all.

I just went from 2002-2019. 2002 the starting point because that's when the NFL went to the current four-division format. I looked at the number of wins each team had in each division in each year. I did two quick studies.

First, the total number of wins for that division each year. Then second, I removed the Patriots and every other division's top team and just looked at the number of wins each division's bottom 3 teams had. Because it's not remotely fair to remove the Patriots and then look at other divisions INCLUDING the other division's top team. You can't take out the AFC East's top team and then compare that division's win total to other divisions if you keep THEIR top team in. We can all agree on that methodology, I hope. By the way, this works because even in the years NE didn't win the AFCE - 2002 and 2008 - they had the same number of wins as the division winner; they just lost on tiebreakers. So removing their record doesn't artificially alter this little study.

First methodology - total wins in the division. Here's where the AFC East ranked year by year:
2002: 3
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 8
2006: 1
2007: 5
2008: 2
2009: 5
2010: 1
2011: 4
2012: 5
2013: 3
2014: 4
2015: 1
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 8
2019: 2
TOTAL FROM 2002-2019: 1
That is to say, in this 18 year span, the AFC East had the most number of wins of ANY division in the entire NFL, at 605. The second best was the NFC South, with 587.

Second methodology - total wins in the division MINUS the top team in each division (which is always NE in the case of the AFC East):
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 2
2006: 1
2007: 8
2008: 2
2009: 4
2010: 2
2011: 5
2012: 6
2013: 3
2014: 4
2015: 1
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 7
2019: 2
TOTAL FROM 2002-2019: 1
That is, in this 18 year span, the AFC East had the most wins by teams 2-4 of ANY division in the entire NFL, at 384. The second best was the NFC East, with 382.

Using this second methodology, here's the number of times the AFCE had each ranking:
#1: 5 (27.8%)
#2: 4 (22.2%)
#3: 2 (11.1%)
#4: 3 (16.7%)
#5: 1 (5.6%)
#6: 1 (5.6%)
#7: 1 (5.6%)
#8: 1 (5.6%)

The AFCE ranked in the top 4 in wins (teams 2-4 in the division) 14 out of 18 seasons (77.8% of the time). They ranked #1 or #2 9 out of 18 times (50%). They ranked #7-8 just twice (11.1%).

Long story short, the claim that the AFC East was a weak division during the TB/BB era is demonstrably, laughably, objectively false. Never mind the ludicrous, absurd claim that it was "historically bad".


Maybe this post can be pinned or something because every now and then someone else regurgitates the nonsense claim that the Yam Bag is spouting here, and it's easily debunked.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

I was genuinely curious, so I looked it up - I have the non-Pats AFCE going 267-305 (.467) in interdivisional play from 01-19 and 4-8 in the playoffs removing the two Jets-Pats games. You'd obviously expect the playoff percentage to be lower since they were almost all road games and it's far from the main reason the Pats were a dynasty, but it was absolutely a weak division.

 

[BaseballJones]

What has Bill has done over the last few years to make you conclude that his fastball is still ridiculously good?

I see a HC/Grand Poo Bah who:

Failed to hire the right guys to run his offense.

Who has watched his "coordinators" continually call third down plays with passes before the sticks and are absurdly predictable.

Who has seen his QB perform materially worse as a second year player.

Arguably mishandled the situation with Zappe and Jones when Jones was able to return such that the absolute shit show and circus ensued during the Bears game.

Has not seen his team beat any good team this season. (Would they have beaten the Jets if someone other than Zach Wilson was starting? Or the Colts with Matt Ryan?)

Has not won a playoff game since Tom left.

Alienated Tom and Gronk with some of his decision making, including the petty removal of Alex Guerrero from the sideline, etc.

Was overly conservative in not going for it in OT against the Packers and at other times on 4th and short.

Presided over several drafts that were complete whiffs (although since Caserio left, the drafts have gotten much better, thankfully).
~~~

Make no mistake, I would not fire Bill. I think the "they have not won without Tom and therefore Bill isn't special" argument is artful yet obvious trolling.

But I wish I could grade him like you have for the last several years. To me, he's been materially worse that "ridiculously good."

Tell me why I am wrong.

He took a rebuilding team led by a rookie QB and won 10 games and went to the playoffs last year. That's incredibly rare.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

Ok so I just spent the last 15 minutes putting this together, and @Rick Burlesons Yam Bag - this isn't going to be pretty for you. Like, at all.

I just went from 2002-2019. 2002 the starting point because that's when the NFL went to the current four-division format. I looked at the number of wins each team had in each division in each year. I did two quick studies.

First, the total number of wins for that division each year. Then second, I removed the Patriots and every other division's top team and just looked at the number of wins each division's bottom 3 teams had. Because it's not remotely fair to remove the Patriots and then look at other divisions INCLUDING the other division's top team. You can't take out the AFC East's top team and then compare that division's win total to other divisions if you keep THEIR top team in. We can all agree on that methodology, I hope. By the way, this works because even in the years NE didn't win the AFCE - 2002 and 2008 - they had the same number of wins as the division winner; they just lost on tiebreakers. So removing their record doesn't artificially alter this little study.

First methodology - total wins in the division. Here's where the AFC East ranked year by year:
2002: 3
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 8
2006: 1
2007: 5
2008: 2
2009: 5
2010: 1
2011: 4
2012: 5
2013: 3
2014: 4
2015: 1
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 8
2019: 2
TOTAL FROM 2002-2019: 1
That is to say, in this 18 year span, the AFC East had the most number of wins of ANY division in the entire NFL, at 605. The second best was the NFC South, with 587.

Second methodology - total wins in the division MINUS the top team in each division (which is always NE in the case of the AFC East):
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 2
2006: 1
2007: 8
2008: 2
2009: 4
2010: 2
2011: 5
2012: 6
2013: 3
2014: 4
2015: 1
2016: 3
2017: 4
2018: 7
2019: 2
TOTAL FROM 2002-2019: 1
That is, in this 18 year span, the AFC East had the most wins by teams 2-4 of ANY division in the entire NFL, at 384. The second best was the NFC East, with 382.

Using this second methodology, here's the number of times the AFCE had each ranking:
#1: 5 (27.8%)
#2: 4 (22.2%)
#3: 2 (11.1%)
#4: 3 (16.7%)
#5: 1 (5.6%)
#6: 1 (5.6%)
#7: 1 (5.6%)
#8: 1 (5.6%)

The AFCE ranked in the top 4 in wins (teams 2-4 in the division) 14 out of 18 seasons (77.8% of the time). They ranked #1 or #2 9 out of 18 times (50%). They ranked #7-8 just twice (11.1%).

Long story short, the claim that the AFC East was a weak division during the TB/BB era is demonstrably, laughably, objectively false. Never mind the ludicrous, absurd claim that it was "historically bad".


Maybe this post can be pinned or something because every now and then someone else regurgitates the nonsense claim that the Yam Bag is spouting here, and it's easily debunked.

The Jets, Dolphins, Bills and '01 Colts went 267-305 outside the division from 2001-19. Isn't that the fairest way to judge it?

 

[BaseballJones]

I was genuinely curious, so I looked it up - I have the non-Pats AFCE going 267-305 (.467) in interdivisional play from 01-19 and 4-8 in the playoffs removing the two Jets-Pats games. You'd obviously expect the playoff percentage to be lower since they were almost all road games and it's far from the main reason the Pats were a dynasty, but it was absolutely a weak division.

Bad methodology. See my post just above yours for why.

 

[BaseballJones]

The Jets, Dolphins, Bills and '01 Colts went 267-305 outside the division from 2001-19. Isn't that the fairest way to judge it?

No. You can't compare the bottom 3 AFCE teams' records to other divisions if you keep the other divisions' top teams in the discussion. That's not apples to apples.

Do the same thing you just did, but with the bottom three teams every year in each division, and you'll be surprised at the result.

 

[BigJimEd]

I have only blocked maybe 2 people here but I agree with you and I exercised that option on the obvious troll here. I don’t take blocking anyone lightly and I like this forum a lot. I see post after post arguing with someone who is only disturbing the flow here.




Been here since like 2009 and lurked for 2-3 years before that. Never advocated for blocking anyone but in this case I would hate to see you and others go when we can all decide to just ignore the obvious troll is obvious.

Thanks. Good advice. Done that. Problem is too many play along and we rehash same old irrelevant argument for 485th time.

 

[Shaky Walton]

He took a rebuilding team led by a rookie QB and won 10 games and went to the playoffs last year. That's incredibly rare.

Yes it is. But his team wilted down the stretch and then got pummeled when they got to the playoffs. One of the biggest beat downs in the playoffs I have ever seen.

I can't get to "ridiculously good" and I don't think that reply gets you there, either.

 

[BaseballJones]

Yes it is. But his team wilted down the stretch and then got pummeled when they got to the playoffs. One of the biggest beat downs in the playoffs I have ever seen.

I can't get to "ridiculously good" and I don't think that reply gets you there, either.

Well yes, that was an awful playoff game, no question about it. But he did get there with a rebuilding team and a rookie QB, which basically never happens. It's actually quite an accomplishment. But I guess we can define "good" or "ridiculously good" differently. YMMV.

 

[BaseballJones]

Thanks. Good advice. Done that. Problem is too many play along and we rehash same old irrelevant argument for 485th time.

I'm hoping my post (#1,272) kind of puts that old trope to bed for the last time. Or, if it comes up again, we can just go back to that because that's the actual data and not someone's "feelings" about how strong or weak the division was.

 

[Shaky Walton]

I have only blocked maybe 2 people here but I agree with you and I exercised that option on the obvious troll here. I don’t take blocking anyone lightly and I like this forum a lot. I see post after post arguing with someone who is only disturbing the flow here.




Been here since like 2009 and lurked for 2-3 years before that. Never advocated for blocking anyone but in this case I would hate to see you and others go when we can all decide to just ignore the obvious troll is obvious.

The amount of time people spend arguing with someone who is clearly trying to get under Pats fans' skin and is really good at the Eddie Haskell routine astounds me.

Would he be here if the Pats were 10-1? I mean, I don't actually know. But I have a pretty good guess.

 

[Shaky Walton]

Well yes, that was an awful playoff game, no question about it. But he did get there with a rebuilding team and a rookie QB, which basically never happens. It's actually quite an accomplishment. But I guess we can define "good" or "ridiculously good" differently. YMMV.

It was indeed that. And I don't mean to quibble with you.

I just think the list of things I mentioned and that I could add to is long, and that Bill has not been very good at his job recently. Yes, he got them to the playoffs. With the help of Josh McDaniels.

For me, a big part of judging him is judging how he constructs his staff. You can't be in charge of everything and not be judged on that basis.

The Patriots play calling on offense, and their entire scheme, is laughably bad. Players are openly questioning it. Commentators across the board, including ones who are fair or even tilted to the Pats, are noting how pathetic their offensive game plans are. I am no expert but I shake my head and scream at the TV constantly this season. Everything seems off kilter.

The sum total of that suck tells me that Bill has not done a good job this season. Last year was better before Thanksgiving and then horrible thereafter.

I wish you had convinced me!

 

[Harry Hooper]

You, me, @Super Nomario, and @Shelterdog all mentioned the offensive line in depth last off-season. I know some others did too. I think you raise a good point. What happened this off-season? Well they drafted Hines and Steuber late and I really liked Hines. Hines reminded me on tape a lot of Onwenu. Unfortunately both of those guys were hurt. Steuber was tough but his lack of athleticism showed up. Still, I think had Hines been healthy they might have been able to use Strange or Hines as backup Cs too. That might be a stretch but Hines started his career at LSU as a center in 2019 and had cross-training there. Strange took reps at the senior bowl as a center and some thought that would end up being his best position in the NFL. They could have drafted other offensive lineman who can play OT:

Spoiler

Like Zach Tom, Abe Lucas, Thayor Munford, Tyler Smith, Bernhard Raimann, Max Mitchell, etc. These guys went on day 1, 2, and 3 of the draft and all have played OT better than Wynn this year. Zach Tom played... I think 4/5 or 5/5 positions on the line. He might have been a little small for them but I loved him and he's really played well in just five games for the Packers this year at OT (86th on my board//3rd highest of all the evaluators). That's still not a lot of guys though, right? All of them had warts and I am not sure they were ideal fits for the Pats. So the Pats skipped over OT in the draft unless you count Steuber.

Trading Herron and cutting most of the guys they had on their depth chart minus Cajuste to start the season was a curious decision. Cajuste had some consistently nice reps as a run blocker but got smoked too often in pass pro. Not having Hines and cutting the other backup IOL meant James Ferentz had to start. Ferentz has been decent in pass protection but he's a horrendous liability as a run blocker. They are lucky nothing has happened to Strange or Onwenu. They have no good depth. Why did they cut or trade everyone?

I heard this from Lazar on the Patriots Unfiltered pod and one of the other hosts seemed to confirm and say they do this kind of stuff (as in they did it to David Andrews) I am about to detail. So the Patriots initially offered Ted Karras 3/15 and he got an offer for 3/18 from CIN. Ted (or his agent) called them and asked if they could bridge it a little bit. They reduced their offer. Now typically the Patriots have gone with more athletic LGs in Bill's history but Andrews is getting up there and has some injury history and health concerns and Karras can also play OC. Instead of keeping Ted at LG they let him walk, traded back, and drafted Cole Strange. Strange has not been good this year. I liked Cole Strange. I had a 2nd/3rd round kind of grade on him. I was worried about his pass pro and starting right away. This was not a great year for offensive line in the draft. Also, Cole could still turn out to be a solid LG. It's hard to redo your pass pro from the ground up year 1.

It's on video somewhere, but what makes the recent OL moves really look odd is BB being gleeful back in the LeVoir era about "really having 5 tackles" making up his OL.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

No. You can't compare the bottom 3 AFCE teams' records to other divisions if you keep the other divisions' top teams in the discussion. That's not apples to apples.

Do the same thing you just did, but with the bottom three teams every year in each division, and you'll be surprised at the result.

Let's take the bottom three teams in the AFCN in the Ben era from 04-21:

04: 14 interdivisional wins
05: 16
06: 14
07: 15
08: 13.5
09: 17
10: 14
11: 19
12: 15
13: 11
14: 19.5
15: 11
16: 8.5
17: 10
18: 14
19: 7
20: 18.5
21: 18

That's 255/540 for .472, despite the Browns going 1-19 in two years. It's also had 10 division titles outside the team that's won the most. The Bengals lap BUF/MIA/NYJ in this stretch and are yet a distant third in their division. Obviously the Pats have been a superior franchise, but are you really going to argue they've had it tougher in their division than the Steelers or Ravens?

 

[SMU_Sox]

It's on video somewhere, but what makes the recent OL moves really look odd is BB being gleeful back in the LeVoir era about "really having 5 tackles" making up his OL.

Yeah - we found a weird statistic that Bill has not taken an OL in the first three rounds that didn't start at LT at least part of the time during their tenure. He almost broke the streak this year with Cole Strange but Strange technically started 3-4-5 games or whatever it was at LT his last year in college. It makes some sense. Your best//best-and-most-athletic OL is usually your LT.

 

[Shelterdog]

You, me, @Super Nomario, and @Shelterdog all mentioned the offensive line in depth last off-season. I know some others did too. I think you raise a good point. What happened this off-season? Well they drafted Hines and Steuber late and I really liked Hines. Hines reminded me on tape a lot of Onwenu. Unfortunately both of those guys were hurt. Steuber was tough but his lack of athleticism showed up. Still, I think had Hines been healthy they might have been able to use Strange or Hines as backup Cs too. That might be a stretch but Hines started his career at LSU as a center in 2019 and had cross-training there. Strange took reps at the senior bowl as a center and some thought that would end up being his best position in the NFL. They could have drafted other offensive lineman who can play OT:

Spoiler

Like Zach Tom, Abe Lucas, Thayor Munford, Tyler Smith, Bernhard Raimann, Max Mitchell, etc. These guys went on day 1, 2, and 3 of the draft and all have played OT better than Wynn this year. Zach Tom played... I think 4/5 or 5/5 positions on the line. He might have been a little small for them but I loved him and he's really played well in just five games for the Packers this year at OT (86th on my board//3rd highest of all the evaluators). That's still not a lot of guys though, right? All of them had warts and I am not sure they were ideal fits for the Pats. So the Pats skipped over OT in the draft unless you count Steuber.

Trading Herron and cutting most of the guys they had on their depth chart minus Cajuste to start the season was a curious decision. Cajuste had some consistently nice reps as a run blocker but got smoked too often in pass pro. Not having Hines and cutting the other backup IOL meant James Ferentz had to start. Ferentz has been decent in pass protection but he's a horrendous liability as a run blocker. They are lucky nothing has happened to Strange or Onwenu. They have no good depth. Why did they cut or trade everyone?
.....
[Cuit for length]

I think the answer is a pretty easy one--unless you've been drafting amazingly for years you're going to be light at a few spots, and this year they gambled and lost hoping that they've have enough at OL (and particularly at OT). I'm assuming Herron wasn't going to make the Pats initial 53 (and might not make the Raiders 53 either) and they figured they had Cannon on speed dial so they gambled that they could get by with Wynn/Cajuste/Brown with Cannon in a pinch, and they gambled wrong.

 

[Leather]

It was indeed that. And I don't mean to quibble with you.

I just think the list of things I mentioned and that I could add to is long, and that Bill has not been very good at his job recently. Yes, he got them to the playoffs. With the help of Josh McDaniels.

For me, a big part of judging him is judging how he constructs his staff. You can't be in charge of everything and not be judged on that basis.

The Patriots play calling on offense, and their entire scheme, is laughably bad. Players are openly questioning it. Commentators across the board, including ones who are fair or even tilted to the Pats, are noting how pathetic their offensive game plans are. I am no expert but I shake my head and scream at the TV constantly this season. Everything seems off kilter.

The sum total of that suck tells me that Bill has not done a good job this season. Last year was better before Thanksgiving and then horrible thereafter.

I wish you had convinced me!

The problem is that you aren't giving him credit for his staff when the Patriots are good, but discounting him for his staff selection when they're bad. "Well his team isn't good this year; must be his chosen staff." "Well yes, he was good last year, must have been his staff."

 

[BaseballJones]

Let's take the bottom three teams in the AFCN in the Ben era from 04-21:

04: 14 interdivisional wins
05: 16
06: 14
07: 15
08: 13.5
09: 17
10: 14
11: 19
12: 15
13: 11
14: 19.5
15: 11
16: 8.5
17: 10
18: 14
19: 7
20: 18.5
21: 18

That's 255/540 for .472, despite the Browns going 1-19 in two years. It's also had 10 division titles outside the team that's won the most. The Bengals lap BUF/MIA/NYJ in this stretch and are yet a distant third in their division. Obviously the Pats have been a superior franchise, but are you really going to argue they've had it tougher in their division than the Steelers or Ravens?

I literally looked at every division from 2002-2019 and gave the exact number of wins for each team, each division as a whole, and each division's team's 2-4. For that entire 18 year period, year by year, and total.

And the AFC East grades out pretty darned well no matter how you slice it. If you take the total wins including all four teams, the AFC East has the most wins of any division in that time frame. If you take out each division's top team each year, the AFC East STILL has the most wins of any division in that time frame.

I don't know what else to tell you. It's possible that they somehow - despite the data - aren't the best division over that time frame, but the argument by Yam Bag was that they were not only bad, they were "historically bad" as a division. That's demonstrably false.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

I literally looked at every division from 2002-2019 and gave the exact number of wins for each team, each division as a whole, and each division's team's 2-4. For that entire 18 year period, year by year, and total.

And the AFC East grades out pretty darned well no matter how you slice it. If you take the total wins including all four teams, the AFC East has the most wins of any division in that time frame. If you take out each division's top team each year, the AFC East STILL has the most wins of any division in that time frame.

I don't know what else to tell you. It's possible that they somehow - despite the data - aren't the best division over that time frame, but the argument by Yam Bag was that they were not only bad, they were "historically bad" as a division. That's demonstrably false.

It's not about looking at the bottom three teams though (even though the North is still higher from the comparisons I listed) - it's about the Pats vs. teams x/y/z. Of course the East has the most wins because the Pats have been by far the best team in the league, even outside the division. Both the Pats have been the gold standard and played in a weak division are entirely compatible.

 

[tims4wins]

It's not about looking at the bottom three teams though (even though the North is still higher from the comparisons I listed) - it's about the Pats vs. teams x/y/z. Of course the East has the most wins because the Pats have been by far the best team in the league, even outside the division. Both the Pats have been the gold standard and played in a weak division are entirely compatible.

I think the most accurate characterization of the AFC East from 2001-2019 is that it rarely (if ever) produced any non-Patriot legit title contenders (perhaps the 2010 Jets); but on the flip side, it rarely produced any tanking, horrible teams (2004 and 2007 Dolphins do come to mind); so, overall the winning % for the bottom three teams look comparable or better to other divisions, but with a different mix (e.g., your AFC North produced not only multiple contenders but multiple champs during this period).

 

[Rudy's Curve]

I think the most accurate characterization of the AFC East from 2001-2019 is that it rarely (if ever) produced any non-Patriot legit title contenders (perhaps the 2010 Jets); but on the flip side, it rarely produced any tanking, horrible teams (2004 and 2007 Dolphins do come to mind); so, overall the winning % for the bottom three teams look comparable or better to other divisions, but with a different mix (e.g., your AFC North produced not only multiple contenders but multiple champs during this period).

That's fair. However, the Jets have a playoff drought almost twice as long as any other team. The Bills went 17 years without making it. The Dolphins have made it twice in the last 20. The Pats certainly have a lot to do with that, but it takes more than them to produce that level of ineptitude.

 

[lexrageorge]

It's not about looking at the bottom three teams though (even though the North is still higher from the comparisons I listed) - it's about the Pats vs. teams x/y/z. Of course the East has the most wins because the Pats have been by far the best team in the league, even outside the division. Both the Pats have been the gold standard and played in a weak division are entirely compatible.

The data provided by @BaseballJones shows that overall the division’s teams were not materially worse than those of other divisions, even when removing the Pats. And the fact stands that the Pats had similar winning percentage in and outside divisional games.

The division looks weak because there was really only one signature team in the Pats. The Pats toughest rivals for the AFC crown were almost always outside the division, except for the 2010 Jets.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's not about looking at the bottom three teams though (even though the North is still higher from the comparisons I listed) - it's about the Pats vs. teams x/y/z. Of course the East has the most wins because the Pats have been by far the best team in the league, even outside the division. Both the Pats have been the gold standard and played in a weak division are entirely compatible.

But the AFCE hasn't been a weak division. As a division, if you take out each division's top team every year, the AFCE had the most wins of any division in the NFL from 2002-2019.

The Patriots were by far the most dominant team in the NFL over the course of that span. They accumulated 221 wins, 33 more than the #2 team (Pittsburgh). Of course they ran roughshod over their division - they ran roughshod over the entire NFL. If they played in another division, they'd have pummeled those guys too, year after year after year. Other teams like Pittsburgh or Indy or Denver all had stretches where they were bad and other teams in their divisions rose to the top. The Patriots didn't have that because they were uber ridiculously good. But if you look at the bottom three teams in the AFC East, they won a lot of games compared to other divisions' lower three teams.

 

[BaseballJones]

I think the most accurate characterization of the AFC East from 2001-2019 is that it rarely (if ever) produced any non-Patriot legit title contenders (perhaps the 2010 Jets); but on the flip side, it rarely produced any tanking, horrible teams (2004 and 2007 Dolphins do come to mind); so, overall the winning % for the bottom three teams look comparable or better to other divisions, but with a different mix (e.g., your AFC North produced not only multiple contenders but multiple champs during this period).

I think this is pretty fair. Other than the Jets in 2010, yeah, no AFC East team during that span was any real threat to win it all.

But then again, the only team during that whole time that was ALWAYS a threat to win it all was the Patriots.

The AFC East team with the fewest number of wins during that stretch (02-19) was Buffalo, with 126, and they ranked #25 (so the very top of the bottom 8 teams). So the AFC East had the #1 TOP team (NE - 221 wins) and #1 BOTTOM team (Buf - 126 wins) in the league over that stretch. But the middle two teams weren't as good as other divisions' middle two.

Again, long story short, we can argue whether the AFCE was the "best" division - there most certainly are arguments against that - but in no way was the AFCE a trash division, and certainly in no way was it "historically bad", contrary to Yam Bag's claim.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

But the AFCE hasn't been a weak division. As a division, if you take out each division's top team every year, the AFCE had the most wins of any division in the NFL from 2002-2019.

The Patriots were by far the most dominant team in the NFL over the course of that span. They accumulated 221 wins, 33 more than the #2 team (Pittsburgh). Of course they ran roughshod over their division - they ran roughshod over the entire NFL. If they played in another division, they'd have pummeled those guys too, year after year after year. Other teams like Pittsburgh or Indy or Denver all had stretches where they were bad and other teams in their divisions rose to the top. The Patriots didn't have that because they were uber ridiculously good. But if you look at the bottom three teams in the AFC East, they won a lot of games compared to other divisions' lower three teams.

The Steelers obviously haven't been nearly as successful as the Pats and wouldn't be even if you switched them, but they had one bad year (and admittedly a few mediocre years) in this stretch. The AFCN still has a higher bottom three interdivisional winning percentage, and it would be considerably higher if you switched the Steelers with the team who won the division in the years they didn't which is doing an apples to apples Steelers vs. Pats comparison. You think the Pats would've had a bye every year if the second place teams from both divisions switched places?

 

[SMU_Sox]

I think the answer is a pretty easy one--unless you've been drafting amazingly for years you're going to be light at a few spots, and this year they gambled and lost hoping that they've have enough at OL (and particularly at OT). I'm assuming Herron wasn't going to make the Pats initial 53 (and might not make the Raiders 53 either) and they figured they had Cannon on speed dial so they gambled that they could get by with Wynn/Cajuste/Brown with Cannon in a pinch, and they gambled wrong.

Good points. It seemed like Cajuste had taken the backup OT job from Herron who had a rough camp. Also given that they wanted to run the ball going into the year having Cajuste as their backup OT made some sense as he is, credit where it is due, a good (yes good) run blocker.

I count the OL against Bill more than other fuck-ups though. I would put relying on a street free agent who doesn't have the movement skills to play RT as a bad strategy - even as a break glass in case of emergency too! Cajuste has had injury issues for years. Hell so does Wynn and Brown! The combination of these 3/4 seemed like a bad idea at the time and it didn't work out. Kind of like the time I ate 38 fire-in-the-hole wings at the Allen Pluckers. Shit didn't work right for months after and it wasn't worth the gamble for the wing trophy that some skinny dude took from me a month later.

Ferentz is another one. Look, if you're running a lot of duo and inside zone you need a center who can run block. You also need a guy who, if you're running gap/power, is not going to get blown back and impede the path of pulling linemen and/or TEs. One of the more underlooked aspects of why Ferentz is tanking their run game is how often guys need to run around him because he's blown off his spot and into the backfield. That mucks up the timing for those gap/power plays. I get that Ferentz doesn't make many mental errors and is solid in pass pro but he was/is really tanking the run game. He should be the best PS OL or your last OL on the bench. When he's your best IOL backup you have severe problems there. And I LIKE Ferentz.

Being light at a few spots is ok - it's just being light at OL when you have a pocket passer and want to rely on the ground game is an especially bad strategy, you know? This was a strategic blunder that was both foreseeable and avoidable. The entire offense requires at the minimum a functional OL. And if you want any sort of ceiling or better than average offense you NEED a good OL with the rest of their O-roster. With their limited weapons they still put up some points last year and they hardly ever looked THIS bad. This year though you see how hard it is to overcome a bad line. And, to be fair here, it's been 2 years since we've been calling for him to take an OT high. Unfortunately he's had other priorities and the draft has not really broken to him that way but he could have swung it this last draft.

The one guy I think I kind of forgive him for is Isaiah Wynn. He was having some athletic deterioration last year but this year it went from below average to truly bad.

One last note about scheming around your OL. So one of the more common ways to scheme around a bad OL is quick game. The issue for the Pats with quick game is none of their guys are the twitched up types with exceptional RAC. You want a crafty route runner too. Bourne has the RAC part down but he is one of the worst route runners on the team. Meyers can run routes well but isn't super twitchy and his RAC while improved is mediocre. Tyquan is a vertical speed guy. Parker has never been a RAC guy and doesn't have much juice either. They have the wrong types of receivers for quick game and they knew this going into the year. Hence why the gamble was even more foreseeable and regrettable.

 

[BaseballJones]

The Steelers obviously haven't been nearly as successful as the Pats and wouldn't be even if you switched them, but they had one bad year (and admittedly a few mediocre years) in this stretch. The AFCN still has a higher bottom three interdivisional winning percentage, and it would be considerably higher if you switched the Steelers with the team who won the division in the years they didn't which is doing an apples to apples Steelers vs. Pats comparison. You think the Pats would've had a bye every year if the Ravens and pick your other AFCE team switched places?

Is your argument that the AFC East wasn't the *best* division over that span of time? Because all I'm arguing is that, contrary to Yam Bag's assertion, the AFC East wasn't "weak", and most certainly wasn't "historically bad", as he claimed.

Also...I don't know how our numbers seem far apart. I totaled up the wins in each division from 2002-2019. Here's the totals:

TOTALS
AFCE: 605
NFCS: 587
NFCE: 581
AFCN: 575
AFCW: 575
NFCN: 567
AFCS: 566
NFCW: 544

TOTALS (teams 2,3,4 in each division every year)
AFCE: 384
NFCE: 382
NFCS: 377
AFCN: 368
AFCW: 366
AFCS: 363
NFCN: 360
NFCW: 346

 

[Shaky Walton]

The problem is that you aren't giving him credit for his staff when the Patriots are good, but discounting him for his staff selection when they're bad. "Well his team isn't good this year; must be his chosen staff." "Well yes, he was good last year, must have been his staff."

Yes and no.

The buck always stops with Bill.

I do think that his decisions this year regarding his staff were awful. I don't need to detail why. It's obvious that he chose poorly with Matt P and Joe Judge. Or whoever is actually running this offense.

His choice of Josh McDaniels did net better results in 2021. That was a positve.

But my overall grade of Bill over the last several years is not "ridiculously good."

From the period beginning in Tom's last season until now, I think Bill has not been anything close to that. His decisions on the offensive coaching staff this season are a glaring example. There are many others, and many do not relate to his staff.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

Is your argument that the AFC East wasn't the *best* division over that span of time? Because all I'm arguing is that, contrary to Yam Bag's assertion, the AFC East wasn't "weak", and most certainly wasn't "historically bad", as he claimed.

Also...I don't know how our numbers seem far apart. I totaled up the wins in each division from 2002-2019. Here's the totals:

TOTALS
AFCE: 605
NFCS: 587
NFCE: 581
AFCN: 575
AFCW: 575
NFCN: 567
AFCS: 566
NFCW: 544

TOTALS (teams 2,3,4 in each division every year)
AFCE: 384
NFCE: 382
NFCS: 377
AFCN: 368
AFCW: 366
AFCS: 363
NFCN: 360
NFCW: 346

I've only been using interdivisional games, so there's your discrepancy. Aside from not being any title contenders besides the '10 Jets (I'll give you '09 too - that team made it just as far and had two points better SRS and maybe even '04 if Brien makes a kick, they probably don't beat the Pats but who knows), there just haven't been many playoff teams at all.

Edit: bad math removed, I'm an idiot