Debunking the "easy competition" theory

[Deus Irae]

The East last year wasn't a weak division. It had a 12 win team, a 10 win team, a 7 win team and a 6 win team (34 wins in the division, equal to the West and South and 1 ahead of the North). Not spectacular, but I don't quite get what people are talking about. I'd say the Jets were a pretty clear playoff team: the Chiefs and Broncos did little to prove they were better than the Jets and you're going into dangerous grounds if you want to argue that an 8 win team should go in the playoffs before them. That, and they were better than every NFC team except the Bears.

The AFCE was the strongest division in football last season. It had 35 wins, not 34, and that was the most in football.

 

[JJDChE]

What needs debunking? We've played four bad teams and one good team that was playing bad at the time. There's not really any way to sugarcoat our schedule. You just have to take into account that we've pummeled the crap out of just about everyone we've played.

 

[He Ban Me]

The AFCE was the strongest division in football last season. It had 35 wins, not 34, and that was the most in football.

Yes, because they had the most wins, they were the strongest

 

[JJDChE]

Yes, because they had the most wins, they were the strongest

What's the problem? More wins is better, right?

 

[He Ban Me]

What's the problem? More wins is better, right?

You just alluded to it on your previous post, about playing bad teams. Well, last season, you guys got the NFC North, who carried two pretty abysmal teams in the Lions and the Vikings. Those two teams won a combined 9 games. The two worst teams in the NFC East (whom the AFC South played) won a total of 13 games. Just saying that last season, the level of competition that the EAST played was not as stout as say, the SOUTH, yet the SOUTH only finished with one less win, and split the head to head with the East. Therefore, NO, I don't think the one additional victory made the East the "strongest"

 

[JJDChE]

You just alluded to it on your previous post, about playing bad teams. Well, last season, you guys got the NFC North, who carried two pretty abysmal teams in the Lions and the Vikings. Those two teams won a combined 9 games. The two worst teams in the NFC East (whom the AFC South played) won a total of 13 games. Just saying that last season, the level of competition that the EAST played was not as stout as say, the SOUTH, yet the SOUTH only finished with one less win, and split the head to head with the East. Therefore, NO, I don't think the one additional victory made the East the "strongest"

Head to Head the East was 8-8 against the South, outscoring them 357-347.

I'd say that's too close to call.

 

[He Ban Me]

Head to Head the East was 8-8 against the South, outscoring them 357-347.

I'd say that's too close to call.

Yeah, I can live with that.

 

[alamo]

There's another thing that bothers me about using in-game domination to supposedly prove superiority.

It was just 3 or 4 years ago that the Patriots fan mantra was "it's not how you win that proves you are a great team, it's how you face adversity". The Pats eked their way to 2 SBs, winning a lot of close ones and often playing down to their competition but always rising to the occasion when needed.

In contrast, when the Pats were winning SBs the Colts were usually dominating lesser teams, but they they failed against the Pats. The Colts looked a lot more mortal last year, but in the process they learned how to win close games and won when it counted.

So that's the crux: how you play against the best competition is much more significant than how you play against everyone else. I am not saying the Patriots will falter, I don't think they will, just that with who we've played so far we can't yet tell with any certainty how good the Patriots really are.

 

[He Ban Me]

There's another thing that bothers me about using in-game domination to supposedly prove superiority.

It was just 3 or 4 years ago that the Patriots fan mantra was "it's not how you win that proves you are a great team, it's how you face adversity". The Pats eked their way to 2 SBs, winning a lot of close ones and often playing down to their competition but always rising to the occasion when needed.

In contrast, when the Pats were winning SBs the Colts were usually dominating lesser teams, but they they failed against the Pats. The Colts looked a lot more mortal last year, but in the process they learned how to win close games and won when it counted.

So that's the crux: how you play against the best competition is much more significant than how you play against everyone else. I am not saying the Patriots will falter, I don't think they will, just that with who we've played so far we can't yet tell with any certainty how good the Patriots really are.

3....2.....1


GO!!!


LOL, stop it man, you make too much sense! Watch out!