Rochesterfan

So then explain why the Pats win percentage in the regular season against the rest of the NFL is nearly identical to the AFC east record? If the Jets Bills, and Dolphins are the enablers - why does the AFC north have a lower win percentage against NE than the AFC east teams? The facts are that outside of Denver in the AFC everyone is around 0.300 as a winning percentage against NE or worse. Miami actually has the next best record in the AFC with 11 wins in 33 games versus Brady. The Worst teams are the Bills, Cleveland, Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Houston with a winning percentage of around 10%. The truth is NE beats everybody - it does not matter what division or where the game is played. You move NE to the AFC north and nothing changes - AFC south same domination. AFC west if they replace Denver - the winning percentage is nearly identical to what the AFC east sees. Denver with a 6-7 record versus Brady in the Regular season and 3-1 in the playoffs for and overall record of 9-8 and are the only AFC team not to be Brady’s female dog. Logically your argument would make sense if the Pats struggled against the rest of the AFC, but were getting home field throughout because of the AFC east teams, but they are averaging 13 wins with Brady so on average they are going 5-1 (0.833) versus the AFC east and 8-2 (0.800) versus the rest of the NFL and that is with them playing two additional AFC teams that were top seeds the year before.

One last thing to as food for thought - if we switched NE and Cleveland and gave the AFC east just one additional victory from Cleveland versus the 2 loses against NE - The Bills in the last 15 years would have more playoff appearances and more division titles than the Steelers. The entire AFC east would seem better overall.

I just wonder how much they would have sucked if taking your though experiment and moving NE and Cleveland. In that scenario with just giving the Bills 1 win against Cleveland instead of the 2 loses to NE there is a chance the Bills make the playoffs 6 times in the last 15 years and have 3 division titles (3 WC would come down to tiebreakers so it is close). The Jets would win the division 6 times and the Dolphins 4 times. Cleveland and Buffalo would have 1 season with a tiebreaker. You don’t think that 5 additional playoff appearances and the potential of some back to back years would not have changed significantly the culture and the number of coaching changes for each of these teams. Additionally Just quickly looking at the impact to just Pittsburgh - assuming the 1 additional loss having NE instead of Cleveland and using NE record - Pittsburgh goes from 8 division titles and 2 WCs to just 5 potential WC spots over the 15 years - so does missing the playoffs potentially 5 years in a row in the late 2000 get Tomlin fired? It has a huge impact because no longer is Pittsburgh considered a yearly division winner - they are now the NYJs getting in on a few random years as a wild card. The implications for Baltimore and Cincinnati are even worse moving them out of the playoffs several times where they just snuck in.

I think McVay did a huge disservice to himself and the team. The Rams were best going uptempo and keeping teams off balanced. Getting to the line seeing what a defense was going to do and then adjusting before the headset shuts off. Then like a college team using hand signals to help get everything set. In the Super Bowl - McVay to try and thwart BB kept the Rams in the huddle until the head set would shut off to prevent BB from adjusting, but that limited the adjustments he could make and Goff could not do it himself. That team is all about what McVay can see and he purposefully took himself out to try and limit BB and it cost the Rams.

Maybe, but Brady in the Regular season is 6-1 versus Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Cleveland over the years. At that rate against those three teams they would be 29 - 4 against each of them rather than 30 - 3. Pittsburgh with their 8-2 regular season mark would be 26 - 7 or 27 - 6 over the same time period. In reality based upon regular season numbers in a division with Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh - NE would actually see their win totals increase by getting away from Miami - meaning they might actually have been better in this scenario. The reality is - who knows what would have happened, but to assume all of a sudden the Pats would not be the same is a real stretch as they dominate the AFC north just as much as the AFC east. They have similar regular season dominance over the AFC south and most of the AFC west. It seems only Denver really has their number - especially in the playoffs.

That may be, but taking Roethlisberger for example - he has like 1 win and like 8 loses versus NE - how would his legacy be changed if instead of Cleveland or Cincinnati to beat up on - he had NE. You probably end up taking away his Super Bowl and several of his playoff appearances with 2 more losses a year. If like the teams in the AFC east - the Steelers miss the playoffs for 4 or 5 years are they as patient with Tomlin - I mean he was almost let go after missing the playoffs this year. Basically are they the same Steelers if NE is in the division beating them twice a season on average. In addition - currently he only plays those teams once every couple of years - so his overall film and knowledge is not as in depth as against AFC east teams - give BB more reason to win those games i.e. division games and I think it has little impact overall on NE, but a huge impact on that division.

Yes I understand - but the data indicates that since they beat those other teams at a very similar rate - nothing may change. Those games currently mean less and Belicheck has less film and tendencies for those teams and yet still wins at a clip similar to the AFC east and has completely dominated teams like Pittsburgh that have competed for the #1 seed. There is nothing that indicates moving them to the AFC north would suddenly make them lose out on the division title and a 1 or 2 seed. The reality would be that suddenly teams like Pittsburgh or Cincinnati would most likely lose 1-2 more games a season on average and coaches like Tomlin and Lewis would have been fired for not winning divisions and making the playoffs - thus making that division seem more unstable. At the same time adding 1-2 wins to teams in the AFC east mean years where the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins not only make the playoffs, but win the division and get wildcard games. Therefore some of the coaching turnover that has occurred in this division gets reversed and the teams all look more stable and like the rest of the NFL.

Is it a run of incompetence or because NE has been so dominant- the teams are constantly changing because they don’t win. How different would things be if NE was going 5-1 against another division and the Bills division was up for grabs freely each year like the AFC North. Would AFC east coaches have gotten longer if they made the playoffs - Would that stability have made this division look better and another division look worse? It is valid to wonder how the coaching carousel in the AFC east would be different without the dominant team.

You have not proved they would have lost any more - the percentage is just too close to assume if they played more - the percentage would not increase in NE favor and other teams like Pittsburgh would be struggling and changing coaches if they do not make the playoffs for 15 years.

Based upon the overall numbers - I think it has little impact, but my biggest question is why remove the Browns and not the Ravens. I think with the Browns in there you are looking at 5-6 wins yearly just as now. Put them in the AFC North with the Browns, Bengals, and Steelers and I think each of those teams looks just as incompetent as the 3 AFC East teams. I believe the Pats would have had just as many wins and titles, but the AFC East with Buffalo, Miami, and the Jets (throw in Baltimore) suddenly gets much better and more balanced and no longer is the incompetent mess they were losing to NE. The winning percentage of NE in the AFC east versus the rest of the AFC and the NFL in general is pretty consistent- I believe logically- wherever they play - they win just about the same as the do know and it is just another group of teams that look incompetent and go through coaches like mad trying to find an answer.

Perfect and the percentage drops more when you think it is over 2 years and people are talking about 2 players, 2 coaches with a connection, and 1 FO person. There is a bigger pipeline in Baltimore and Miami which both exceed the number of Carolina connections already.

Come on - it’s not like he took time off in the middle of a game week to take several staff members to Cleveland for a World Series game or anything. I mean his priorities have always been more about Rex, but his less than 2 years here was a total joke. He was always a bad coach that lacks discipline and details and it gets magnified as a HC where it is all about the details. The circus he ran could be easily seen by the players talk after games, about being out of position and trying to run things they had never done. This Reggie Bush comment just reinforces what was obvious to all of us looking in from the outside - Rex was a joke!

I do not believe it would change much of anything and that was inside 2 minutes - couldn’t challenge - the league would then need to decide to challenge it. Just do not not see it happening anytime soon.

I could totally get behind this. Make deferring a more dangerous option.

I understand that it does seem an advantage, but the overall records show that it is as much or more of an advantage than the coin toss in the NFL. I do not have an issue either way, but there is an advantage to being the second team and it is significant. It would be even more so in an NFL match-up.

The second team knows what is needed to win. The first team kicks a FG - the second team gets to 4th down and has choices available- go for the win or tie. The first team scores a TD - the second team knows it needs a TD so every possession is 4 downs. Getting the ball second can be a huge help. That is why since the college OT rules started - the team getting the ball second wins at a higher rate that the teams that win the coin toss in the NFL. It seems fair, but still provides advantages to one team that is actually greater than what we have seen in the NFL since they changed their OT rules.

That would be fine, but would then give a new advantage to the team that goes second. It is why in college OT the team on defense first wins a higher percentage by a similar margin as the NFL coin toss winners. I could live with both teams getting a chance, but it does not bother me at all that they don’t. I actually like the rules now that give a TD a win and a FG the ball back to the other team. At some point someone has and advantage and someone needs to make a stop whether it is the first drive in OT or the third. I just do not get to caught up in an advantage that over the years has been shown to be consistently under 5% different between the two outcomes.

That just shows the the coin toss means very little. The team winning the coin toss won 54.8 % when you excluded ties - why exclude ties. With the ties included the team winning the coin toss won just over 51%. Yes they have a slight advantage, but it is minor. Looking at this year and more offense - including playoffs the team that won the toss won exactly 50% of the time. Even in the playoffs - one team one the coin toss and won and the other winner lost the coin toss and forced a turnover. The article nicely shows that the college rules are no better just favor the team that goes second by a similar margin. The team going second with the advantage Wins 54.9% of the time. Slightly higher percentage the other way because it gives the second team a major advantage. So what is your alternative that gives an exactly equal 50/50 chance to win because there is not one - either way one team will have an advantage of about 5% to win.

Oh gods - please no. I absolutely hate the college OT rules. I prefer the sudden death you get in the NFL - coin toss be damned. Get a stop - teams have been doing that consistently for years.

I can see them making a play - either via trade or a FA signing if cut. I think a signing like this would impact the draft and the thoughts leading up to it.

@OldTimeAFLGuy You do not have to image it. Look at how they treated Shaq Lawson when his friend died this year. Pegula plane to the south. Take your time. Here is the playbook for the week - study. Provided full support of both team and needed resources. Shaq came back and was able to play, staff and players worked to make sure he was ready. It created a more family type atmosphere.

I don’t know about most, but in terms of Left tackles only 4 teams had a LT miss more games than Glenn and 1 of those teams in Cleveland switched tackles in the season not due to injury. 18 teams had a LT start and play in every game this year and 5 more teams had their LT only miss one game and it was almost always a short week or just before the bye. This is 3 straight years he has failed to play more than 13 games and like some of the other tackles that missed extended time it becomes a pattern. I think that Glenn can certainly be a starter, but he is not elite and he was being paid as a top 6 LT and with a lack of playing full time - I would be leary of that salary with his play. He has fallen to mid level starter and in the coming years his salary will align its that, but if you are a rebuilding Cincinnati team - do you pay over 9 million for him or do you try to move on? If you can get a pick - I think they move on. If not it will depend, but he has a roster bonus due in March or they can get out with no dead cap money before that.

His salary this year was over 11 million and 6th highest in the league this year. Was he the 6th best LT in light of the 3 games missed. His salary decreases in coming years, but he has missed time each of the last 3 years - so that needs to be factored.

Sort of - right now he is the 6th highest paid tackle in the NFL and his 2018 pay alone was higher than what 12 teams paid for all of their tackles both left and right - starters and back-ups salaries combined. That will change with this off-season, but the fact is he started the year strong, but his play declined. Then he got hurt missed multiple games and was much less effective upon his return. I have no idea what they will do, but my guess is they will be looking to replace him ASAP with a cheaper and healthier alternative.

I believe early in the year he played well, but then injuries and missed snaps mounted up. He missed 3 full games and parts of several others. I do not think by the end the team was thrilled with the amount of time he missed and the rehab and work that went into getting ready. I don’t know if they will cut him, but it has been over 3 seasons since he played all 16 games and the amount of missed games and snaps have been adding up. I don’t think they can count on him to be healthy and therefore he might not be suited to be a starter in the league any longer and 9 million for a partial back-up is a lot. It is also the potential out year with no dead cap money - so if they want to rebuild - try to trade and then cut him.