RealFantasy AFC North Discussion and Breakdown

Who's the division champ?

  • Bengals

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • Ravens

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Steelers

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • Browns

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • Total voters
    22

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,122
A Scud Away from Hell
I'm just glad some of you are coming around to the fact that Steelers have competition for the "cellar dwellar". I believe it was 7 votes to 2 or something like that at one point. 
 
Edit: yup - voted for my own team as #1. If GM doesn't believe in his own team, who will?
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,962
Not to pour gas on a fire that seems to be dying down, but I think it really comes down to the QB's in the division and I think SMU and KFP are trying to downplay the importance of the position as much as possible in this exercise. We all know QB is the most important position on the field. Having to play 6 games against Brady, Kap and Wilson is going to test your defense week after week. There are going to be games where those guys carry their teams to wins they might not deserve when they face tough defenses. Add into the equation that you likely would've started the season with Blaine Gabbert for 3 or 4 weeks and you're looking at what, a 1-3 record out of the gates (and you will not convince me you started better than 2-2)? Say Fitz comes in and works his "magic". How many times are you taking Fitz over Brady, Kap, or Wilson? There will be weeks your defense shows up and still won't be able to carry you to victory over those 3. So out of the remaining 12 games, at best I think you're looking at an 8-4 record (and that's giving Fitz a lot of credit). So where does 9-7 get you? A wild card spot, which where I think most of us have you guys ranked. Now I don't think you guys are the worst team in the division, and didn't rank you as such, but I can see an argument being made that any one of those QB's can beat you on any given week. 
 
Like I said, I'm not trying to reignite a discussion that I haven't even been a part of, you guys certainly would've beat up on my Dolphins, but you're in one hell of a division led by 3 of the top QB's in the league. You're at a disadvantage at the most important position on the field almost every week. That means a lot. And that makes it a lot harder to win a division based around a dominant defense. This isn't the 2000 Ravens, as you cited earlier, where the QB's in their division were Steve McNair, Kordell Stewart, Mark Brunell, Akili Smith and Tim Couch. It's possible you could get to the playoffs and make a run. Any team can make that argument once you get there, it's just going to be tough getting in at 9-7. 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
We would have benched Gabbert after week 2. KFP and I felt that way coming into the season that he was on a very short leash. We even thought about letting RFP start right away. I think 1-1 or 0-2 and then 10-4. RFP is a top 25 QB. You can win with that if your surrounding cast is good. I 
 
Kap struggled this year. Wilson is a great young QB but he isn't a Peyton Manning level of player yet. Brady? Yeah we better knock his ass down or he'll carve us up. I think we beat Miami even with Gabbert as QB.
 
Week 1: Miami. Even with Gabbert we win. 1-0
Week 2: @ Ravens. Look, I know he has Kap - but our defense matches up really well against his offense and SN doesn't have much of a defense. Is it that hard to imagine we lose a close one or win here? 1-1 with a legit shot at 2-0
Week 3: @ Vikings. I mean I think we win here as EJ Manuel is ranked even lower than RFP and I think we use RFP from here on out. I think we win. 2-1
Week 4: Cin - I think we split with them. We win at home. They win at home. 3-1
Week 5: Buf - No surprise but I think we win a close one at home. 4-1 Perhaps we lose one to CIN/BUF so 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2 are all real possibilities
Week 6: Lions - Weak team. 5-1 is my best guess up to now. 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 are all in there.
Week 7: @ Packers - we win here. 6-1 but 7-0, 6-1, 5-2 aarp.
Week 8: @ Chiefs - win. We have a better offense, QB, and defense. 7-1 but 8-0. 7-1, 6-2 aarp.
Week 9: Ravens: We win at home especially with RFP being our QB now for 6 weeks. 8-1 but 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, aarp.
BYE
Week 11: @ Cin, loss. 8-2, but 9-1, 8-2, 7-3 AARP.
Week 12: Steelers, win. 9-2, but 10-1, 9-2, 7-4 AARP
Week 13: Jaguars. I really think we could beat them but... let's say their offense gets the best of us in the regular season even though we're at home. 9-3, but 11-1, 9-3, 7-5 AARP
Week 14: @ Pats. Ugh, another coin flip. Let's say we lose on the road: 9-4, but 11-2, 9-4, 7-6 AARP
Week 15: Chicago - very good team. Let's say we lose. 9-5, but 11-3, 7-7 AARP.
Week 16: @ Jets - we win. 10-5, but 12-3, 8-7 AARP.
Week 17: @ Steelers - we win even if it is close and it's a division game so it will be close: 11-5, but 13-3, 9-7 AARP.
 
So if we win 50% of the coinflips we're either 10-6 or 11-5. If we win the vast majority of the coin flips we are 13-3. If we lose almost all of the coin flips we're 9-7. I'm going on who we would actually face.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
We would have benched Gabbert after week 2. KFP and I felt that way coming into the season that he was on a very short leash. We even thought about letting RFP start right away. I think 1-1 or 0-2 and then 10-4. RFP is a top 25 QB. You can win with that if your surrounding cast is good. I 
Gabbert got hurt week 1, so you probably would have gone to Fitzpatrick week 2. I disagree he's a top-25 QB though. NFL/BR called him the #50 QB in football. Waldman called him a "quality backup," which would presumably put him more in the 30-45 range. He's mistake-prone and he's going to lose you some games, maybe some you expect you'd win.
 
SMU_Sox said:
::snip:: 
So if we win 50% of the coinflips we're either 10-6 or 11-5. If we win the vast majority of the coin flips we are 13-3. If we lose almost all of the coin flips we're 9-7. I'm going on who we would actually face.
Are you factoring in injuries here?
- Willis missed weeks 4 and 5
- Charles Johnson missed weeks 12 and 13
- Rhodes missed weeks 15+
- Murray missed most of week 6 and weeks 7 and 8
- Asamoah missed week 1 and hardly played after week 11
- Rinehart missed from most of week 3 until week 10
- Jennings missed week 6
 
You have a win down for week 6 - how are you scoring points that game minus Murray, Jennings, and Rinehart? Are you taking that game week 4 vs the Bengals without Willis in the middle?
 
FWIW, I think you have an excellent chance of beating my squad twice - I was super-unhealthy week 2 and you caught my squad at good times in terms of your health. But in general you overrate Fitzpatrick, and you're either ignoring your injuries or seriously overrating your depth.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
Look, we have a squad of 30. Rhodes was held out because the Vikings sucked. He could have played. Asamoah fell out of favor with Andy Reid - that wouldn't be a problem with us.
 
Every team in this league would have the same shit you just mentioned about us. Everyone has no depth and players got banged up. You really think that's unique to the Browns? When you broke down how injured we were during those games did you also do the other squads? My guess is no because that would take quite some time. But saying we're injured without making those same adjustments for the opposite side doesn't help that much. You have a point but until you give the other half of the coin it doesn't help that much.
 
Granted you DID say you were injured in week 2. That helps.
 
Again though at least one of the teams we are up against only had 4 offensive lineman who played at all this year. Let's pretend we have standard depth. It doesn't make sense not to.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
In Week 4 121 wouldn't have had 2 of his 3 corners and one of his DT's. Seems like a wash.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
Look, we have a squad of 30. Rhodes was held out because the Vikings sucked. He could have played. Asamoah fell out of favor with Andy Reid - that wouldn't be a problem with us.
Maybe they would have played, but how effective would they have been with ankle and shoulder injuries, respectively?
 
SMU_Sox said:
Every team in this league would have the same shit you just mentioned about us. Everyone has no depth and players got banged up. You really think that's unique to the Browns? When you broke down how injured we were during those games did you also do the other squads? My guess is no because that would take quite some time. But saying we're injured without making those same adjustments for the opposite side doesn't help that much. You have a point but until you give the other half of the coin it doesn't help that much.
To some extent this is true, but you guys have less depth at a number of positions because you used 3 picks on QBs and had two no-shows. You'd be playing Nate Potter at G almost every week. Looking at our division, you had the fewest snaps at QB, offensive skill positions, and defensive front 7. Only in the secondary did you really have depth.
 
This is a bit of a sore point for my squad - I have the worst cumulative PFF score for my offensive line, but if we compared to replacement level rather than average I'd fare a lot better, since I wouldn't have had to plug in replacement-level subs while everyone else would have. 
 
SMU_Sox said:
Again though at least one of the teams we are up against only had 4 offensive lineman who played at all this year. Let's pretend we have standard depth. It doesn't make sense not to.
What does "standard depth" mean? I think we have to assume we have enough replacement-level players to field a squad, but I don't think it means we ignore that guys missed time. I mean, I'm happy to assume Crabtree, Gilmore, Irvin, and others played 16 games, but I don't think that makes a lot of sense, does it? 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
How are you confusing standard depth with guys being healed? Depth means you have guys to fill in. It has nothing to do with guys playing who are injured. I'm not trying to be a dick here but I don't see how anyone could twist depth into that.
 
Asamoah had an "injury". Reid didn't like him.
 
Rhodes might have missed a week, I guess, but not more than that I think as an outsider. 
 
Nate Potter would have played at either RG or LG for a bit. But aside from Rinehart missing some time everyone else was healthy and could play minus Asamoah for a week. 
 
Your snap counts also miss the point I think. Look, Arthur Brown was a backup for the Ravens in real life. On our team he is a starter. Knownshon split time with the Broncos - for us he is a 1b. Tamme was a really good backup. Not for us.
 
Our front 7 barely has the fewest snaps. But if you factor in Arthur Brown playing a whole year full time, Dorsey not being a rotational guy, etc, we're fine.
 
Snap counts provide context. Context isn't the definition here. Hell, if context mattered the Bengals don't have a punter. Are you actually going to waste time making that argument? No. This isn't fantasy football. It's a thought exercise.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
How are you confusing standard depth with guys being healed? Depth means you have guys to fill in. It has nothing to do with guys playing who are injured. I'm not trying to be a dick here but I don't see how anyone could twist depth into that.
What is "standard depth?" We have to assume there's some level of fill-in, but I think equally obviously there's going to be a significant downgrade from the starters.
 
SMU_Sox said:
Asamoah had an "injury". Reid didn't like him.
He was on the injury report. But even if you're right, that's not really encouraging, is it?
 
SMU_Sox said:
Rhodes might have missed a week, I guess, but not more than that I think as an outsider. 
It's unlikely he would have been 100% though.
 
SMU_Sox said:
Your snap counts also miss the point I think. Look, Arthur Brown was a backup for the Ravens in real life. On our team he is a starter. Knownshon split time with the Broncos - for us he is a 1b. Tamme was a really good backup. Not for us.
Some extrapolation along these lines is fair and necessary. But we have to be careful when we extrapolate the snaps of a backup to real life. Brown played 211 snaps; only 25 of those were rushing plays, which suggests Baltimore didn't trust him on running downs. On my squad, James Harrison had a great PFF rating, but he was just a 2-down guy for Cincy. Dorsey's another guy like Harrison; he played primarily on running downs.
 
SMU_Sox said:
 Our front 7 barely has the fewest snaps. But if you factor in Arthur Brown playing a whole year full time, Dorsey not being a rotational guy, etc, we're fine.
 
Snap counts provide context. Context isn't the definition here. Hell, if context mattered the Bengals don't have a punter. Are you actually going to waste time making that argument? No. This isn't fantasy football. It's a thought exercise.
I would say context matters, but we have to be smart about how we interpret it.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,962
And what happens if Arthur Brown isn't as good as you guys think? We have very little information with which to judge him at the NFL level and what we do have doesn't show a whole lot. I mean, I could say the same thing for a number of my guys. It's certainly possible, that, somehow, he wouldn't have been as good as you project him to be. 
 
The fact is, we're just going to have to agree to disagree with your assessment of your team. That's not a 12 win team IMO. There were only 5 teams in the NFL last season who won 12 games. Those teams? DEN, NE, SEA, SF, CAR. Notice anything about those teams? None of them had a QB the caliber of Ryan Fitzpatrick. The year before, there were only 4 such teams (and 6 in '11, and 4 in '10, in case you were wondering). It's really, really hard to win 12 games. And you're doing that in a division with 3 of the best QB's in the league? 
 
Fitz is the same guy who lost to JAX in week 10 and lost to ARI in week 15. His wins came against the NYJ, OAK, and then JAX/HOU in the last two weeks of the season. I know, he didn't have your defense, but you'll have to excuse me if you think I'm buying your argument that he's a top 25 QB that got you to 12 wins. Especially in your division. I just don't see it happening. Is it possible? Sure, ANYTHING'S POSSSSIBBBLLLEEEE. But likely? I just don't see it. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
I think the home team wins every divisional game in this division. Teams are too closely matched, and they should all be playoff teams.
 
The Browns should be happy someone like me who values the QB very highly can see they have enough good players to compete.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
Arizona was a good team. Not sure your point there. Nor Would I Look At QB wins and losses. We're past that now. On mobile.

I posted rfps stats. I don't get the hate. He's a below average qb. He isn't a black hole. You don't just accidentally put up a higher passer rating than 13 other starting or spot starting qbs. 22 starters were better than him. That means below average but not atrocious. I'm not saying he's good. I'm saying he isn't as bad as you think he is. And it's not like I didn't think that before I drafted him. Look at his games against the Pats. The guy isn't chopped liver.
 

Dgilpin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,774
PA
SMU_Sox said:
We would have benched Gabbert after week 2. KFP and I felt that way coming into the season that he was on a very short leash. We even thought about letting RFP start right away. I think 1-1 or 0-2 and then 10-4. RFP is a top 25 QB. You can win with that if your surrounding cast is good. I 
 
Kap struggled this year. Wilson is a great young QB but he isn't a Peyton Manning level of player yet. Brady? Yeah we better knock his ass down or he'll carve us up. I think we beat Miami even with Gabbert as QB.
 
Week 1: Miami. Even with Gabbert we win. 1-0
Week 2: @ Ravens. Look, I know he has Kap - but our defense matches up really well against his offense and SN doesn't have much of a defense. Is it that hard to imagine we lose a close one or win here? 1-1 with a legit shot at 2-0
Week 3: @ Vikings. I mean I think we win here as EJ Manuel is ranked even lower than RFP and I think we use RFP from here on out. I think we win. 2-1
Week 4: Cin - I think we split with them. We win at home. They win at home. 3-1
Week 5: Buf - No surprise but I think we win a close one at home. 4-1 Perhaps we lose one to CIN/BUF so 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2 are all real possibilities
Week 6: Lions - Weak team. 5-1 is my best guess up to now. 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 are all in there.
Week 7: @ Packers - we win here. 6-1 but 7-0, 6-1, 5-2 aarp.
Week 8: @ Chiefs - win. We have a better offense, QB, and defense. 7-1 but 8-0. 7-1, 6-2 aarp.
Week 9: Ravens: We win at home especially with RFP being our QB now for 6 weeks. 8-1 but 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, aarp.
BYE
Week 11: @ Cin, loss. 8-2, but 9-1, 8-2, 7-3 AARP.
Week 12: Steelers, win. 9-2, but 10-1, 9-2, 7-4 AARP
Week 13: Jaguars. I really think we could beat them but... let's say their offense gets the best of us in the regular season even though we're at home. 9-3, but 11-1, 9-3, 7-5 AARP
Week 14: @ Pats. Ugh, another coin flip. Let's say we lose on the road: 9-4, but 11-2, 9-4, 7-6 AARP
Week 15: Chicago - very good team. Let's say we lose. 9-5, but 11-3, 7-7 AARP.
Week 16: @ Jets - we win. 10-5, but 12-3, 8-7 AARP.
Week 17: @ Steelers - we win even if it is close and it's a division game so it will be close: 11-5, but 13-3, 9-7 AARP.
 
So if we win 50% of the coinflips we're either 10-6 or 11-5. If we win the vast majority of the coin flips we are 13-3. If we lose almost all of the coin flips we're 9-7. I'm going on who
we would actually face.
Lolz...
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA
SMU_Sox said:
Arizona was a good team. Not sure your point there. Nor Would I Look At QB wins and losses. We're past that now. On mobile.

I posted rfps stats. I don't get the hate. He's a below average qb. He isn't a black hole. You don't just accidentally put up a higher passer rating than 13 other starting or spot starting qbs. 22 starters were better than him. That means below average but not atrocious. I'm not saying he's good. I'm saying he isn't as bad as you think he is. And it's not like I didn't think that before I drafted him. Look at his games against the Pats. The guy isn't chopped liver.
RFP vs Pats: 62.8% completion (good), 8.0 YPC (good), 13 TD / 17 INTs (BLERGH!). Unsurprisingly, since he's averaging > 2 INTs / game when playing NE, his teams are 1-6. Bend vs break works like a charm against Fitzpatrick; he can't throw deep and rip off big chunk plays so he has to throw short passes down the field, and eventually he throws a pick.
 

Dgilpin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,774
PA
SMU_Sox said:
 

Week 6: Lions - Weak team. 5-1 is my best guess up to now. 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 are all in there.
.
This is absolutely laughable , much like in real life the lions would smoke the browns . I have two elite tackles to deal with your pass rush plus the best skill position talent in the league. Additionally I'm not buying any of this crap that Fitzpatrick isn't a black hole at the QB position . Lions win 31-17
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
Dude you have no interior offensive line and half your starting front seven and secondary are below average. Furthermore your QB is Ryan Tannehill. And you're giving me shit? He's the statistical equivalent (with a small downgrade) of R-Fitz. We'd beat you.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,962
SMU_Sox said:
I think I'm coming off as a dick now that I reread this.
 
No, you're not. You're presenting valid arguments and I appreciate your defense enough to think you could come in second in the division. I just don't see 12 wins with Gabbert/Fitz, no matter how nasty the defense is.  You like your team more than we do and you've got a completely different opinion of how things would shake out than the rest of us, which you're certainly entitled to...ya dick. 
 

Dgilpin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,774
PA
SMU_Sox said:
Dude you have no interior offensive line and half your starting front seven and secondary are below average. Furthermore your QB is Ryan Tannehill. And you're giving me shit? He's the statistical equivalent (with a small downgrade) of R-Fitz. We'd beat you.
You are crazy if you think Tannehill is a downgrade from a throw away career back up like Fitz ... PFF grades him as significantly better but I guess we are only buying the numbers that support your argument. But whatever keep drinking the Kool Aid you guys are def winning the Super Bowl with a guy that got cut for Matt McGloin
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
I'd rather have Tanne than RFitz. But puffing up your chest about Tannehill is like a guy with a 5.5 inch dick saying his friend's 5 inches is small. Look. You have a bigger penis than me but not by a mile.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
And for the record I think we go 10 and 6. I liked 11 and 5 but I'll penalize us a game for having Harvard as our QB.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA
Voting's been open for a while. I'm inclined to close out, but while division winner is pretty settled, the bottom-dweller is still a tie. Anyone else want to vote (or anyone who voted for the Browns or Bengals want to switch)?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Did you already count my mistake vote for the Browns (last) as a vote for the Ravens (last)?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,039
Mansfield MA

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I think we're all gonna finish last at some point in this division. 
 
I'm just the lucky bastard who finishes first until Brady retires. 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,047
Philly
So, I did a lot of thinking on my squad and came to a conclusion. We're going 5-11. But we lose most of these games by less than 7 and we excel against the spread. I came to this conclusion because I think my lack of depth with skilled players and my QB situation catches up to us. Our D is going to be good. I think we lose a lot of games by scores like 13-10, 17-14, 21-20, etc. If we start the season 0-2 and go 5-9 with RFP at the helm that gets us to 5-11. So what happened?
 
My thoughts are this. We start the season with Gabbert and lose two close games. We switch to RFP but he takes a few games to get into the swing of it. We start winning after a slow start but it's obvious that we're not going to nab a playoff spot. So what happens? We had some minor injuries to players like Asamoah (who IMHO had a phantom injury), and Rhodes. We decide to shut down our injured starters the last two games so that they are healthy for next season. We don't tank but we go 5-11 and this is almost entirely because of QB and skilled position play. Our O-Line and defense is solid and keeps us in the game. We run the ball quite a bit and grind out drives. 
 
The reason I liked my team so much before is that I applied my (successful) gambling methodology to it. I tend to favor teams with strong lines and a pass rush. I was somewhat QB neutral if both teams' QB's were somewhat comparable. But RFP, Gabbert, and Wilson were... well, not good. Yes, we're a run first team. But that's going to get us into a lot of low scoring games where I feel like our lack of a good QB is going to really hurt us. 
 
Change my vote for worst team in the division from the Steelers to the Browns.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,122
A Scud Away from Hell
My Steelers finish last, but not feeling too bad about competiting against the esteemed GMs in our division. 
 
At least we know where our weaknesses are -- bolster the lines on both sides and we should be in pretty good shape.