Patriots dominance this decade is otherworldly

RIpats88 said:

its really unprecedented in this age of free agency. Look at the Seahawks who looked like the next dynasty. and now they are just another team.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

And that's why it's such a big mistake ~ an understandable one, but a mistake, just the same ~ to suggest that it's appropriate, when comparing Dynasties, Coaches, and QuarterBacks from different eras, to go "dollar for dollar", so to speak.

Lay the Salary Cap on those 1970's Steelers, and they win in 1974 and 1975...and then get broken up by Free Agency. No way in Hell that team wins 2 more Super Bowls with Chuck Noll coaching'm. 4 Championships becomes 2.

Vince Lombardi and Bill Walsh, like Paul Brown before'm and our own Bill Belichick, were Revolutionaries and would've thrived in any environment...But there's no questioning that their ultimate Championship totals were enhanced by not being compelled to constantly shred their teams and train new talent.

Just imagine how many Championships we'd have since 2001 if not for the Cap.

Off The Grid said:

Very amusing that people get in a twist when you challenge their goofy assertion that a decade has to be 1-10, when the very easily accessed definition of a decade clearly states that a decade can be any period of 10 years. Hence, the convention of characterizing decades as 0-9 perfectly adheres to that.

And the 2nd definition acknowledges the common usage.

Here it is:

1. a period of ten years:
the three decades from 1776 to 1806.

2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero:
the decade of the 1980s.

Click to expand...

Ok, ok wait just a minute OTG. Sure, in the 14th century the french word decade meant 10 parts and this was unchanged back to the Roman(Latin) usage of decadem unlike decennium that was the specific to a span of ten years though unrestricted by a starting point year _0. But the English starting in the 15th century with their constant swilling of Pub ale and a niche obsession with the writings of Titus Livius, "decade" evolved to its contemporary and common of 10 years with a starting point year _0.

Get you story straight bud!

Off The Grid said:

How do you know? Were you there?? Hmm??

Click to expand...

I’m just relating the argument that has been made here before.

The concept of the year "2000" being the last year of the 20th century and the year "2001" being the first year of the 21st century is probably easier to grasp if you think of those numbers as representing distance traveled through time (time elapsed). The end of the year 2000 represented 2000 "years traveled" or 20 "centuries elapsed" since the starting point - nominally, the birth of Jesus. The final year before the birth of Jesus was designated the "Year 0", in countdown fashion. The first year was designated "Year 1", at the end of which, one year had elapsed.

So, while we were still living in the year 2000, we were still living within the 2000th year since the birth of Jesus, the last year of the 20th century since the birth of Jesus. In the year 2001, we were living within the 2001st year/the first year of the 21st century since the birth of Jesus.

This is merely an arbitrary standardization/convention that helps people in relevant "technical" fields stay on the same page. It's not all that important for most common usages/situations. So, no one is "stupid" for adhering to that convention and no one is "stupid" for NOT doing so in non-technical situations.

Satchboogie3 said:

You are born at 0

Click to expand...

actually.. no.

You are born WITHIN Year One.. (Your FIRST year) You are NOT born in year ZERO. The "digit thing is irrelevant" to this conversation.

I.E. When you turn "1" year old, you did not just finish your "ZERO" year.. you finished your FIRST (YEAR ONE) year.

There is no year ZERO. "Ten" may not be a real digit, but it most certainly is a real "counting number" ZERO is as well, but only if there is NOTHING to count. Which a single year IS something to count, so ZERO is NEVER a counting number for something which the value is ONE.

Actual Pats Fan said:

Year One" is 0000

Click to expand...

um no.

Year ONE would be "1" or put your way "0001" (But that does not make sense because it assumes we would never reach 5 digit years, like 10,001. etc.

It would just be "1"

maineman209 said:

The concept of the year "2000" being the last year of the 20th century and the year "2001" being the first year of the 21st century is probably easier to grasp if you think of those numbers as representing distance traveled through time (time elapsed). The end of the year 2000 represented 2000 "years traveled" or 20 "centuries elapsed" since the starting point - nominally, the birth of Jesus. The final year before the birth of Jesus was designated the "Year 0", in countdown fashion. The first year was designated "Year 1", at the end of which, one year had elapsed.

So, while we were still living in the year 2000, we were still living within the 2000th year since the birth of Jesus, the last year of the 20th century since the birth of Jesus. In the year 2001, we were living within the 2001st year/the first year of the 21st century since the birth of Jesus.

This is merely an arbitrary standardization/convention that helps people in relevant "technical" fields stay on the same page. It's not all that important for most common usages/situations. So, no one is "stupid" for adhering to that convention and no one is "stupid" for NOT doing so in non-technical situations.

Click to expand...

well put. The only complaint I have with this is the retroactive "countdown" for the "BC" or "BCE" years depending on how you like it, and hence the "existence" of a BC year "0", is kind of bogus, since it was all made up and figured out hundreds of years later". There was never a time in human history when a bunch of people said "hey this is the year ONE, or let alone the Year ZERO.

There are two working definitions here. Both are correct.
1) cultural definition, which is based on the number used in the reference (i.e. "the '90's" equals 1990 to 1999)
2) statistical definition, which has been explained in this thread a number of times, and starts and ends the decade one year later than the cultural definition.

Both are accurate for their purposes. There's no reason to try to make one "right" and the other "wrong" other than simply for the sake of argument as entertainment.

But using the cultural definition to prove a point about football statistics is guaranteed to evoke a "corrective response." That should be expected by those who practice such risky behavior.

Speaking of the Pats' "dominance" ...

A factoid popped up yesterday on Miguel's Twitter feed noting that four of the six longest-standing playoff droughts had been broken this year by TEN, JAX, BUF and the Rams. Then there was another factoid noting that only four of this year's playoff spots were occupied by teams who were in the playoff last year - a turnover rate that hasn't occurred since something like 20 years ago (I don't remember exactly what it said and am too lazy to go back and look for the twet).

Anyway, this led to the discovery that only one NFC team from last year's playoff slate made the playoffs this season - the Falcons. PIT, KCY and the Pats all made it back from last year's AFC slate. So, this then led me to look back a bit further.

For every decade of the current playoff format, there have been 120 playoff spots available - 60 per conference.

For the decade 2008 thru 2017 (inclusive):

In the NFC ...
- 15 of the 16 teams have made the playoffs at least once ... TBY is the only team that hasn't.
- just seven teams have accounted for 40 of the 60 available spots with 8 other teams dividing the remaining 20.

8 - GBY (one SB appearance)
6 - SEA (2), ATL (1)
5 - NOL (1), CAR (1), PHL, MIN
4 - ARZ (1)
3 - SFO (1), NYG (1), DAL, DET
2 - WAS
1 - CHI, Rams


In the AFC ...
- 15 of the 16 teams have made the playoffs at least once ... CLE is the only team that hasn't.
- just seven teams have accounted for 44 of the 60 available spots with 8 other teams dividing the remaining 16

9 - Patriots (3 SB appearances, avg seed = 1.6)
7 - PIT (2)
6 - IND (1), BAL (1), CIN
5 - DEN (2, avg seed = 1.8), KCY
4 - HOU
3 - Chargers
2 - NYJ, MIA, TEN
1 - OAK, JAX, BUF

Only 14 of the 32 teams made the playoffs 50% of the time or better.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

best guess of what Jesus looked like, based on the genetic makeup of the population where he was apparently born:

Click to expand...

But that can't be true. Every picture I've seen of the guy gives him northern European characteristics. Can you contact the artist and please narrow that nose, bring the eyes closer together, and straighten and lighten the hair? The skin is fine as long as it just looks like he's got a nice tan. This is making me uncomfortable. Plus, the entire western economy will be harmed if we start messing around with the narrative of what beauty and virtue look like.

AndyJohnson said:

I’m just relating the argument that has been made here before.

Click to expand...

Just joshin'.

zoostation said:

And all this time I assumed this run was less than spectacular

But seriously, the Patriots are the greatest organization in the history of North American sports! A run like this will never happen again. Period.

Click to expand...

Red Auerbach and Bill Russell might disagree.

poetaytoe or poetahtoe? it's a complex world

maineman209 said:

The final year before the birth of Jesus was designated the "Year 0", in countdown fashion. The first year was designated "Year 1", at the end of which, one year had elapsed.

Click to expand...

Just got off the phone with JC, and he confirmed what I already knew:

************ was born in 04 AD!!!

Let me say it again:

The easily accessed definition of a decade states that a decade can be any period of 10 years. Hence, the convention of characterizing decades as 0-9 adheres to that.

Off The Grid said:

This is some intensely funny stuff.

We need to have "Andy Johnson" and Alleged Pats Fan argue every night!!

Click to expand...

I was surprised to see AJ drop out so soon. APF is no slouch though. His stance on Pat Patriot proves that.

I have a friend who likes to start these kind of discussions and then back out and watch the show. I saw him get two tables of drunks going for hours once by stating that a WR should be able to use roller blades on astroturf. He kept insisting that there was no rule against it in the rule book.

I started watching the Pats in 40BB, the year they were born. Now here we are in 18AB and the Pats are one of the top 3 dynasties of all time. Who woulda thunk it?

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

best guess of what Jesus looked like, based on the genetic makeup of the population where he was apparently born:

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what Jesus looked like - I’m not THAT old. I do, however, know what his dad looks like... he has a beard sometimes too...

1960Pats said:

I was surprised to see AJ drop out so soon. APF is no slouch though. His stance on Pat Patriot proves that.

I have a friend who likes to start these kind of discussions and then back out and watch the show. I saw him get two tables of drunks going for hours once by stating that a WR should be able to use roller blades on astroturf. He kept insisting that there was no rule against it in the rule book.

Click to expand...

I have no horse in the race, I was just framing the argument as it has been argued on this board previously, and saying both sides have a reason to justify.

AndyJohnson said:

I have no horse in the race, I was just framing the argument as it has been argued on this board previously, and saying both sides have a reason to justify.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that you were doing anything else. It's just that OTG's comment reminded me of that other situation