Weakest AFC field in years?

[PatriotFan77]

Why would they get a "pass" for that when they'll be facing teams with winning records in the playoffs? ?

I was using your logic.

 

[Deus Irae]

I was using your logic.

No, you weren't. :bricks:

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Brady
Fatboy
Flacco
Dalton
Yates
Tebow

Um, yes. This is a very weak AFC field. The drop off from Brady to Ben is huge, let alone the other 4.

No Manning, Rivers, Schaub, Sanchez, Palmer? So weak this year.
























Relax, you goons I was joking about Sanchez

Roethlisberger = Fatboy?

Never heard anyone claim him this nickname before

 

[Uncle Rico]

Roethlisberger = Fatboy?

Never heard anyone claim him this nickname before

I've been assuming the poster meant "Fratboy." Which kinda sorta makes sense.

 

[PatriotFan77]

Roethlisberger = Fatboy?

Never heard anyone claim him this nickname before

Yeah the oft used Rapistburger is hit or miss in my opinion b/c who knows, maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

There's no denying he is fat however.

 

[PatsDeb]

I don't think it's that weak - you have one team that's 13-3 and two teams that are 12-4. Maybe they are the "defensively weakest" in years, but that can be said for the NFC's top teams too, except for San Fran, which is offensively weak, compared to everybody else.

Let's just enjoy the ride. If the Pats make it all the way, I don't want to hear it's because the field was weak. You play who's on the schedule. GO PATS!!

 

[52decleetzu]

As great as our 07 team was, that playoff field was stacked from top-bottom. This year's field is filled with POS teams that we should all beat at home, especially with injuries to Ben and Mendenhall, a Steelers team that is our only real threat. Flacco and that Baltimore offense is horrible and their defense isn't as good as it was two years ago. As bad as our defense looks on certain stretches, they don't turn in a full game awful performance like the Ravens offense will do.

I am confident we will make it to the SB.

LOL.

Sounds like 2009 all over again.

We saw how that worked out.

 

[lillloyd]

I really think this is the Pats year to steal a title. The Steelers have won 2 titles by default in down years for the Patriots, defeating crappy NFC opponents in the title game. While whoever wins this year will face no such cupcake in the Super Bowl, I don't see why the Pats don't have as good a chance as anybody to at least get there.

I never quite understood this logic from some Pats fans, because it seems like a "slippery slope" argument that actually denigrates the Patriots accomplishments in the 2000s.

Clearly the past decade was the AFC's, and as such there were no dynasty NFC teams being thrown into the SBs for competition. So what privileges the Jake-Delhomme led Panthers (or McNabb's Eagles) over the 13-3 Seahawks of '05? These were all basically one year wonders from the NFC--teams that had great seasons but ultimately were one-and-done in the SB. None are to be confused with the Cowboys of the early 90s or the '85 Bears.

The reality is that there have been precious few true heavyweight title bouts since the 70s, so it seems to me that if you criticize one team for not defeating "Super Bowl worthy" juggernauts in their Super Bowls, by extension you're diminishing *any* team that wasn't defeating such teams...including your Patriots.

Personally, I think a Super Bowl win is a Super Bowl win; if you make it that far and get the title, it's by definition a "worthy" act. The Pats have won 3 titles--each one, a tremendous accomplishment--and have had unparalleled success over the past decade. In that light, nitpicking at another team's accomplishments seems kind of unnecessarily peevish and small...and again, sort of critical of your own team in a roundabout way (at least, if you're holding your team to the same standards as others).

**I will agree with one thing, however -- I do think this year and this field sets up very nicely for the Pats for a return to the SB. And I think if they get there, whatever concerns they have about their defense will diminish because they'll be in a shootout with a team of a similar makeup. I actually like their chances in that scenario because I think BB with 2 weeks preparation team is a massive advantage.

 

[Ivan]

I think it's the weakest field for the entire NFL in many years, even the best teams are seriously flawed and the weaker ones really shouldn't be play-off teams in a good year. If next season goes the same route they are going to have to make rule changes to even the playing field for defenses because they have made them almost irrelevant.

 

[PatsGirl2011]

I think it's the weakest field for the entire NFL in many years, even the best teams are seriously flawed and the weaker ones really shouldn't be play-off teams in a good year. If next season goes the same route they are going to have to make rule changes to even the playing field for defenses because they have made them almost irrelevant.

This! Hit the nail on the head...Denver is probably the worst playoff team since I've been watching football. They were not even the best team in their division.The NFC have 5 teams that have struggled defensively. While the AFC is offensively challenged.

 

[NSPF]

I never quite understood this logic from some Pats fans, because it seems like a "slippery slope" argument that actually denigrates the Patriots accomplishments in the 2000s.

Clearly the past decade was the AFC's, and as such there were no dynasty NFC teams being thrown into the SBs for competition. So what privileges the Jake-Delhomme led Panthers (or McNabb's Eagles) over the 13-3 Seahawks of '05? These were all basically one year wonders from the NFC--teams that had great seasons but ultimately were one-and-done in the SB. None are to be confused with the Cowboys of the early 90s or the '85 Bears.

The reality is that there have been precious few true heavyweight title bouts since the 70s, so it seems to me that if you criticize one team for not defeating "Super Bowl worthy" juggernauts in their Super Bowls, by extension you're diminishing *any* team that wasn't defeating such teams...including your Patriots.

Personally, I think a Super Bowl win is a Super Bowl win; if you make it that far and get the title, it's by definition a "worthy" act. The Pats have won 3 titles--each one, a tremendous accomplishment--and have had unparalleled success over the past decade. In that light, nitpicking at another team's accomplishments seems kind of unnecessarily peevish and small...and again, sort of critical of your own team in a roundabout way (at least, if you're holding your team to the same standards as others).

**I will agree with one thing, however -- I do think this year and this field sets up very nicely for the Pats for a return to the SB. And I think if they get there, whatever concerns they have about their defense will diminish because they'll be in a shootout with a team of a similar makeup. I actually like their chances in that scenario because I think BB with 2 weeks preparation team is a massive advantage.

2001 Rams were more than worthy, and the Patriots at the time were the ultimate Cinderella story, as you know and deliberately didn't mention. The fact is that some Super Bowl champions had more impressive/interesting runs than others. For example, the 2001 Patriots for beating the Rams, the 2004 Patriots for winning 3 of 4, the 2006 Colts for overcoming the Pats after being down big at the half and losing to them for years, and the 2007 Giants for reasons clear to everyone present (though I think the 2007 Pats are more remembered for losing than the Giants are for winning). Those are the teams that people will remember, because the stories behind them were great, and the games themselves were great. The Steelers' Super Bowl wins, on the other hand, were not that interesting. They beat an unimpressive Seahawks team in a game mostly remembered for terrible officiating, and beat the Cinderella 9-7 Cardinals team that everybody aside from Steelers fans was pulling for. None of the games leading up to the SB were particularly memorable for the average fan either. When the Steelers won, fans of the other 31 teams shrugged.

This year has the potential to be fairly memorable. If the Packers win, they'll be remembered as a dominant team and Rodgers will probably start being seriously considered in the GOAT talks. If the Saints win, it would be similar for Drew Brees, with the added benefit of smashing the yardage record in the same year. If Denver somehow prays their way to victory, Tebow will be legendary even if he never wins another game. If the Pats win, it will be remembered as the Patriots' return to glory, and Belichick and Brady's legacies sealed forever. Plus, it would put them in position to do what nobody else has: win a fifth Super Bowl (not to get ahead of ourselves, but hey, this IS a theoretical scenerio). If anyone else wins, I think for me it will be a meh sort of year. So go Pats!

 

[lillloyd]

2001 Rams were more than worthy, and the Patriots at the time were the ultimate Cinderella story, as you know and deliberately didn't mention. The fact is that some Super Bowl champions had more impressive/interesting runs than others. For example, the 2001 Patriots for beating the Rams, the 2004 Patriots for winning 3 of 4, the 2006 Colts for overcoming the Pats after being down big at the half and losing to them for years, and the 2007 Giants for reasons clear to everyone present (though I think the 2007 Pats are more remembered for losing than the Giants are for winning). Those are the teams that people will remember, because the stories behind them were great, and the games themselves were great. The Steelers' Super Bowl wins, on the other hand, were not that interesting. They beat an unimpressive Seahawks team in a game mostly remembered for terrible officiating, and beat the Cinderella 9-7 Cardinals team that everybody aside from Steelers fans was pulling for. None of the games leading up to the SB were particularly memorable for the average fan either. When the Steelers won, fans of the other 31 teams shrugged.

The 2001 Patriots *were* a tremendous story (although the term "ultimate Cinderella story" would probably best be ascribed to the Rams of 2000 and Kurt Warner, who was bagging groceries a couple years earlier LOL), and of course the 2001 Rams were a very worthy opponent. I didn't "deliberately" not mention anything. I think you've missed my point; *I* think all three of the Patriots SB opponents were "worthy" and was merely pointing out that I don't think you can argue the Steelers victories were against "crappy" NFC clubs (another, previous poster's term) without denigrating Patriots victories against similar clubs...something I don't think is particularly logical, or fair.

Your post just underscores how what we define as "memorable" vs. "shrug-worthy" vs. "nauseating" depends largely one's rooting interest. The '05 Steelers were the first team in history to win from the #6 slot, all road games against double-digit win teams. The Colts game that playoffs was memorable for the degree (and nature) of the upset, with Bettis fumbling at the goal line. And the '08 SB had one of the most memorable finishes, and some of the more spectacular plays, in SB history. (There aren't that many game-winning TDs in the final seconds of Super Bowls...surely you're not "deliberately not mentioning" that? ) I'm guessing that, as a Pats fan, you may have found the above "not that interesting", but would likely find similar stories forged by the Pats to be compelling. But I guess that's the nature of fanhood; by definition, it's not something that's particularly objective.

I do agree that there are great potential storylines to come out of this year's SB. A GB or NO vs Pats SB would make for great theater for sure.

lillloyd

 

[deroc5050]

Even though, in theory, the Saints probably would destroy us the way they did last year,

Your talking about 2009.. The Brady recovery year.. 2009 was the worst Pats team since 2002. They all but quit and Brady just wasn't himself that year. If the pats were playing the Saints outside I honestly think the Pats would handle them. But seeing as though if we see the Saints it will be in Indy.. it will be much tougher. I just think Bree's is a great good weather/indoor QB.. My theory is the way he throws the ball.. its very accurate indoors, but outdoors his balls do not cut through the elements like Brady or Rogers.

 

[NSPF]

The 2001 Patriots *were* a tremendous story (although the term "ultimate Cinderella story" would probably best be ascribed to the Rams of 2000 and Kurt Warner, who was bagging groceries a couple years earlier LOL), and of course the 2001 Rams were a very worthy opponent. I didn't "deliberately" not mention anything. I think you've missed my point; *I* think all three of the Patriots SB opponents were "worthy" and was merely pointing out that I don't think you can argue the Steelers victories were against "crappy" NFC clubs (another, previous poster's term) without denigrating Patriots victories against similar clubs...something I don't think is particularly logical, or fair.

Your post just underscores how what we define as "memorable" vs. "shrug-worthy" vs. "nauseating" depends largely one's rooting interest. The '05 Steelers were the first team in history to win from the #6 slot, all road games against double-digit win teams. The Colts game that playoffs was memorable for the degree (and nature) of the upset, with Bettis fumbling at the goal line. And the '08 SB had one of the most memorable finishes, and some of the more spectacular plays, in SB history. (There aren't that many game-winning TDs in the final seconds of Super Bowls...surely you're not "deliberately not mentioning" that? ) I'm guessing that, as a Pats fan, you may have found the above "not that interesting", but would likely find similar stories forged by the Pats to be compelling. But I guess that's the nature of fanhood; by definition, it's not something that's particularly objective.

I do agree that there are great potential storylines to come out of this year's SB. A GB or NO vs Pats SB would make for great theater for sure.

lillloyd

I agree, sorry if my post sounded like it was attacking you in any way at the beginning. I agree that you cannot take anything away from a Super Bowl champion and that the Steeler's victories took just as much skill/talent/greatness as any, and the 2008 Super Bowl was a great game. So yes, I did lose track of your original point and started talking about something different for some reason. Sorry about that!

 

[Jackson 2]

God, what rubbish. What makes anyone believe the NFC is better? Evidence, please.

 

[lamafist]

Yes, because it at least shows that they've proven capable of beating good teams.

Ah, ok. So, since the Colts have two wins over teams with winning records this season, they've proven themselves more capable of beating good teams than the Pats? Same with the Jaguars, then... they beat the Ravens, so clearly, they've demonstrated a better ability to beat good teams than the Pats, right? And the Chiefs convincingly took out the then-undefeated Packers, so they've proven themselves clearly more likely to beat good teams than the Pats, by your reasoning.

And again, by your reasoning, if the Pats had lost the first game to the Jets, they'd be more proven to be capable of beating good teams, because then their Sunday night victory in the Meadowlands would be against a team with a winning record.

I do love the hypocrisy of fans, though. Last year, it was all about how the Patriots had beaten such a hard schedule. This year, that same argument is now supposed to be meaningless.

Who's arguing that the difficulty of one's schedule is meaningless? Certainly not me. I absolutely think that the quality of the opponents needs to be factored into assessing a team's effectiveness.

The meaningfulness is lost, however, when you arbitrarily and unnecessarily throw out all of the information you have about the relative difficulty of schedules, and sort teams into two categories, "winning record" or "not winning record."

Even when you just add in a little information, like considering a team's w/l record instead of just "winning"/"not winning," you see things like that teams beaten by the Steelers, 49ers, Falcons, Lions, Texans and Bengals, respectively, all have an overall worse winning percentage than the teams beaten by the Pats.

Despite having no wins against teams with winning records, the Patriots actually have the third highest Strength of Victory in the AFC. Baltimore's got the highest. #2? Denver.

Turns out, before you start being able to get anything truly meaningful -- anything that, historically, has correlated with post-season success -- you need to add a lot more information back into the equation than just their w/l records.

 

[brdmaverick]

Brady
Fatboy
Flacco
Dalton
Yates
Tebow

Um, yes. This is a very weak AFC field. The drop off from Brady to Ben is huge, let alone the other 4.

No Manning, Rivers, Schaub, Sanchez, Palmer? So weak this year.

Agree 100%, that was the angle I was going to take when responding to this post (QB talent). This year is by far the worst in recent memory especially if you consider Ben at less than 100%.

Let's look at the NFC....

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Eli Manning
Matt Ryan
Matthew Stafford
Alex Smith

 

[Deus Irae]

Ah, ok. So, since the Colts have two wins over teams with winning records this season, they've proven themselves more capable of beating good teams than the Pats? Same with the Jaguars, then... they beat the Ravens, so clearly, they've demonstrated a better ability to beat good teams than the Pats, right? And the Chiefs convincingly took out the then-undefeated Packers, so they've proven themselves clearly more likely to beat good teams than the Pats, by your reasoning.

And again, by your reasoning, if the Pats had lost the first game to the Jets, they'd be more proven to be capable of beating good teams, because then their Sunday night victory in the Meadowlands would be against a team with a winning record.

By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.

Who's arguing that the difficulty of one's schedule is meaningless? Certainly not me. I absolutely think that the quality of the opponents needs to be factored into assessing a team's effectiveness.

The meaningfulness is lost, however, when you arbitrarily and unnecessarily throw out all of the information you have about the relative difficulty of schedules, and sort teams into two categories, "winning record" or "not winning record."

Even when you just add in a little information, like considering a team's w/l record instead of just "winning"/"not winning," you see things like that teams beaten by the Steelers, 49ers, Falcons, Lions, Texans and Bengals, respectively, all have an overall worse winning percentage than the teams beaten by the Pats.

Despite having no wins against teams with winning records, the Patriots actually have the third highest Strength of Victory in the AFC. Baltimore's got the highest. #2? Denver.

Turns out, before you start being able to get anything truly meaningful -- anything that, historically, has correlated with post-season success -- you need to add a lot more information back into the equation than just their w/l records.

It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.

The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.

 

[Ron Sellers]

By my reasoning, the Patriots failed to show that they could beat a team with a better than .500 record. It's really as simple as that. All the "What if?" hypotheticals you, and others, are trying to push forward aren't going to change that. All the "But this team...." isn't going to change it either.



It's a simple thing, and it's not arbitrary, as you're smart enough to know. The Patriots did not beat a team that finished with a better than .500 record. The Patriots lost to boths team they played that finished with a better than .500 record.

The meaningfulness is only lost on the willfully obtuse, because the meaning is obvious and about a very focused portion of the Patriots' schedule.

You seem to have taken a well thought out, objective analysis of what team(s) have the best chances of winning based on specific unquestionable data. Surely there is historical data to shows a correlation between a team's regular season won-loss record versus teams finishing with winning records and how they did in the playoffs in comparison to other teams, correct? Or more specifically, an 0-2 regular season record versus teams with winning records being a reliable statistic to reasonably predict future playoff results?

 

[supafly]

I agree with what Deus is saying that many of us spoke of the difficulty of last yr's schedule and how the team beat all 4 of the AFC/NFC Championship game opponents; yet many are now looking past the 'easier' schedule of this yr.

You've got to be able to be fair of course, and give credit where it's due.

But at the same time some of the SB runs have been preceded with some good luck along the way (just ask lllloyd about that with his Steelers, as they have never had to beat NE along the way in their 3 SB appearences...AND the gift from the refs in the Seattle SB too).

If we get some good luck this year with a weakened schedule, then so be it. Last yr's ball busting schedule did not net us anything, and as much as I liked to point out the fact that this team beat all 4 Championship game participants of 2010, it did not mean a damn thing in the end.

It's been a weird yr, with both BUF games having the losing team going up 21-0 (how often will that EVER happen?), losing to the Steelers after Brady being 6-1 against them, beating DEN in Mile High after Brady being 1-6 vs them and doing poorly in DEN to begin with, beating WAS for the first time on the road in the Brady era, and having almost an exact replica of the SB 42 loss to the Giants in the closing minutes.

We've also seen this team consistently come back from 10-11 down, 14 down, 17 down and 21 down...something the Pats team of recent past could not do.

We've seen the top 3 offenses in the NFL also have the last 3 defenses in the NFL, and almost saw a 13-3 team give up a record number of yds allowed.

3 guys moved past 5,000 yds passing, more than all the players combined in the previous history of the NFL.

So, it would only make sense that during such a "weird" year, we may get a break or two in terms of an easier schedule, and (hopefully) an easier path than expected to reach the Super Bowl.

Yes, I agree that the schedule was easier this yr, but in fairness it did come after a very hard schedule last yr...everything evens out in the end.