National Football League

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

They just stick to their formula that works for them. Why wouldn't they ? Brady's SB performance was ordinary by his standards. Lots of wayward throws. The best playoff team but they didn't look so great throughout the season. Took them almost a whole game to score a TD and a running back ran the ball in from a few yards out. The Patriots success is a bit of a mystery but they are in the right group to succeed but without the superstars other teams have, it points more and more to Bill B being the real difference although their OC also has to take some credit this year. Brady sticks to the script and obviously knows Edelman and Gronk inside out. There was really only one or two plays in the game that won it for them. They could win again next year but it's getting frustrating to watch. The Falcons SB was a horror for non Patriot fans.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Agree there's no way to know. But the thing is nobody wants an opportunity taken away by bad officiating. Nobody wants bad officiating possibly affecting outcomes. It's not so much about knowing as it is about what's right.

Where do you stop though? On the BBC video about the call either Osi or Jason pointed out that calls are missed all the time. They said there's holding on pretty much every play that could be called. If you allow challenges for everything then the game may suddenly become unmanageable. Of course, players will have to adjust, but it could certainly change the character of many sports.

There's also the fact that officials are as much a part of the sport, any sport, as the teams are. Even as an amateur rugby player I got to know which refs called which fouls and adjusted my game accordingly. Playing the ref is as much a part of the game as playing the opposition.

As both a player and a coach my opinion was always that if you put yourself in the position where one bad call can decide a game, you have to accept that call might go against you. It's rubbish, but it is what it is. I suppose boxing is the most obvious example of this. If you don't knock your opponent out, you have to accept that the judges decide the fight and they might get it wrong.

Hold can be called on just about every play, HOWEVER those holding calls that aren't called are no where near as blatant as that missed call was. That's the issue, when the call is that obvious and it's missed people talk and complain.

Should they be called though? I think as soon as you allow some leeway into the interpretation of the rules you open yourself up to things like this and it's exacerbated by video replays and challenges only being allowed for certain things. Football is a game that's always going to have these problems because it's full contact and there is so much going on during a play. Whose to say what will have an influence and what won't?

Good question. Alpe had some good thoughts on this upthread. In film review I've seen as many as 3 holds, just by an OL group. going on simultaneously. No way to catch everything. As you know, just have to deal with it. My hope is the league can improve the review process to at least catch the obvious penalties. But we have come a LONG way. I recall way back before replay review watching a nationally televised college game, and it was either a Cornhusker or Longhorn running back literally step a distance of one foot OB, not in traffic, but the refs did not see it and the RB went the remaining 20 or so yards for a TD that shouldn't have counted. TV broadcasters commented on it when the play was replayed for the TV audience. But there was nothing anyone could do.

I know I'm not being helpful as all I'm saying is "What about this?" etc. but it's good to see where people with better knowledge of the game draw the line.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Agree there's no way to know. But the thing is nobody wants an opportunity taken away by bad officiating. Nobody wants bad officiating possibly affecting outcomes. It's not so much about knowing as it is about what's right.

Where do you stop though? On the BBC video about the call either Osi or Jason pointed out that calls are missed all the time. They said there's holding on pretty much every play that could be called. If you allow challenges for everything then the game may suddenly become unmanageable. Of course, players will have to adjust, but it could certainly change the character of many sports.

There's also the fact that officials are as much a part of the sport, any sport, as the teams are. Even as an amateur rugby player I got to know which refs called which fouls and adjusted my game accordingly. Playing the ref is as much a part of the game as playing the opposition.

As both a player and a coach my opinion was always that if you put yourself in the position where one bad call can decide a game, you have to accept that call might go against you. It's rubbish, but it is what it is. I suppose boxing is the most obvious example of this. If you don't knock your opponent out, you have to accept that the judges decide the fight and they might get it wrong.

Hold can be called on just about every play, HOWEVER those holding calls that aren't called are no where near as blatant as that missed call was. That's the issue, when the call is that obvious and it's missed people talk and complain.

Should they be called though? I think as soon as you allow some leeway into the interpretation of the rules you open yourself up to things like this and it's exacerbated by video replays and challenges only being allowed for certain things. Football is a game that's always going to have these problems because it's full contact and there is so much going on during a play. Whose to say what will have an influence and what won't?

Good question. Alpe had some good thoughts on this upthread. In film review I've seen as many as 3 holds, just by an OL group. going on simultaneously. No way to catch everything. As you know, just have to deal with it. My hope is the league can improve the review process to at least catch the obvious penalties. But we have come a LONG way. I recall way back before replay review watching a nationally televised college game, and it was either a Cornhusker or Longhorn running back literally step a distance of one foot OB, not in traffic, but the refs did not see it and the RB went the remaining 20 or so yards for a TD that shouldn't have counted. TV broadcasters commented on it when the play was replayed for the TV audience. But there was nothing anyone could do.

I know I'm not being helpful as all I'm saying is "What about this?" etc. but it's good to see where people with better knowledge of the game draw the line.

Reviewing 90% of plays will take no more time than now, and if NY is already reviewing the play prior to a challenge it will speed up the other 10% of reviews so if anything the games will move more quickly. But even getting crazy maybe while ironing out the communication kinks the games might be 10ish minutes longer...1-2 hours, WTH?! :surprised:

 

[King Boonen]

How long does an average review take?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re:

How long does an average review take?

I know this isn't what you meant. But how long does it take you at home to make the call? 30 seconds? That's why it always puzzled me when everyone watching on TV knows the call, but it takes officials on the field 3-4 minutes, looking under the hood, at tablets, etc. to make calls. It's baffling.

Which is why I say if they can't reverse a call within 1 minute, the ruling on the field stands.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

How long does an average review take?

That depends on what you are referring to: most plays will take 0-5 second to review, those that require a closer look maybe 5-20 seconds, with only a few taking up to a minute. If you mean how long do they take now, that's irrelevant because that 'type' of review doesn't exist in a good system.

Maybe you don't understand what I mean by 'NY should review every play". I don't mean stop the game and spend two minutes looking at each play. A team of officials are watching the game (maybe each focusing on specific things), many/most plays will just happen like they do now, as soon as there is a missed call (ie: NO vs LAR) the team buzzes in (that doesn't add any more time than a typical penalty), or bad call (holding call against LAR in the SB), NY buzzes in and says "pick it up" (no extra time). The coaches can still challenge, but NY will know the answer by the time the field ref talks to the coach.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re: Re:

How long does an average review take?

I don't mean stop the game and spend two minutes looking at each play. A team of officials are watching the game.

You and I are in pretty much total agreement. There already IS a team of officials in NY watching every game, every play, which is something people may not realize. They just don't stop the game of play when something happens. They only take action when "buzzed in" from a field to check a call.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

How long does an average review take?

I don't mean stop the game and spend two minutes looking at each play. A team of officials are watching the game.

You and I are in pretty much total agreement. There already IS a team of officials in NY watching every game, every play, which is something people may not realize. They just don't stop the game of play when something happens. They only take action when "buzzed in" from a field to check a call.

I though most fans knew that, but maybe you're right. I want their role to be changed from 'buzzed in' to 'buzzing in'.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I will only add this to what you all wrote, but I'm also thinking you all already know, that some reviews take longer than others if the guys doing the review have to look at 1) where to spot the ball (especially if a key body part e.g. forearm-knee-butt) is partly obscured, or angles are bad, and 2) what time to reset the play clock at. Those are iterations, especially the play clock, that most fans cannot see how long it takes.

I've often wondered if the ref in the booth has multiple Windows open, or how they have to flip back & forth between views. It is possible the tools they are using are a bit cumbersome. Then I've wondered why not feed the screen view from the field booth to something like GoToMeeting so everyone, including viewers of the broadcast, like fans watching everywhere, can see what's going on. Not only might there be better accountability, but it would eliminate broadcaster speculation, and instead broadcasters have something more concrete to comment on.

To take it further for fun, it might be funny to have the ref under the hood of the field booth mic'd up. Blooper fodder.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

How long does an average review take?

I know this isn't what you meant. But how long does it take you at home to make the call? 30 seconds? That's why it always puzzled me when everyone watching on TV knows the call, but it takes officials on the field 3-4 minutes, looking under the hood, at tablets, etc. to make calls. It's baffling.

Which is why I say if they can't reverse a call within 1 minute, the ruling on the field stands.

Hard for me to say, because I don't watch much American Football and I only know the basic rules, i.e. sometimes I'm not sure what the call is and what they're looking at, I don't know what is pass interference and what's allowed etc.

For rugby (both league and union) then yes, it's usually 30 seconds depending on replays, but enough calls go the opposite way to what I, and the commentators, (and all the other possible scenarios) thought they would that you can understand why a ref who might have to justify the call takes more time than the average viewer who probably has some bias one way or the other.

I know when cameras were first introduced to rugby league the refs didn't have all the different angles available which I'm sure isn't the case now, but requesting each one and checking it, even if you think one confirms the call, is probably good practice.

I suppose it also depends who makes the call. If it's the ref on the field they have to stop play, discuss between the officials, check the replays, decide on the call, announce it and get back to the game. Even if the call is quick the whole process can take time. If you have a call every time someone says they were held that'll add up. If you farm it out to another team then that reduces the time.


the 1 minute rule sounds like a good idea, I'd just be interested to see how many extra challenges come about if they can challenge for holding etc. which happens on every play. Adding an extra minute (possibly more with all the additional stuff that needs doing) to 50% of plays will add up very quickly.

[quote="Alpe d'Huez":ik36esy3][quote="jmdirt":ik36esy3][quote="King Boonen":ik36esy3]How long does an average review take?

I don't mean stop the game and spend two minutes looking at each play. A team of officials are watching the game.[/quote]
You and I are in pretty much total agreement. There already IS a team of officials in NY watching every game, every play, which is something people may not realize. They just don't stop the game of play when something happens. They only take action when "buzzed in" from a field to check a call.[/quote]
I though most fans knew that, but maybe you're right. I want their role to be changed from 'buzzed in' to 'buzzing in'.[/quote]

As you're both talking about the same thing, do you think the officials in NY should make the call or the on-field team should? It stops the clock every time as well doesn't it? Won't that change the nature of the game?

 

[Koronin]

Current rules is the officials who are on site can only stop the game in the last two minutes of either half to review a play. (Along with all scoring plays and all turnovers.) However, in at least several college conferences officials in the booth review ALL plays and can stop the game at any time to do a full review of any play. It really hasn't had much effect on those games and most plays do not need reviewed in the first place.

 

[Unchained]

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/21/687255649/an-insurance-crisis-is-quietly-growing-for-football-in-america

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

How long does an average review take?

I know this isn't what you meant. But how long does it take you at home to make the call? 30 seconds? That's why it always puzzled me when everyone watching on TV knows the call, but it takes officials on the field 3-4 minutes, looking under the hood, at tablets, etc. to make calls. It's baffling.

Which is why I say if they can't reverse a call within 1 minute, the ruling on the field stands.

Hard for me to say, because I don't watch much American Football and I only know the basic rules, i.e. sometimes I'm not sure what the call is and what they're looking at, I don't know what is pass interference and what's allowed etc.

For rugby (both league and union) then yes, it's usually 30 seconds depending on replays, but enough calls go the opposite way to what I, and the commentators, (and all the other possible scenarios) thought they would that you can understand why a ref who might have to justify the call takes more time than the average viewer who probably has some bias one way or the other.

I know when cameras were first introduced to rugby league the refs didn't have all the different angles available which I'm sure isn't the case now, but requesting each one and checking it, even if you think one confirms the call, is probably good practice.

I suppose it also depends who makes the call. If it's the ref on the field they have to stop play, discuss between the officials, check the replays, decide on the call, announce it and get back to the game. Even if the call is quick the whole process can take time. If you have a call every time someone says they were held that'll add up. If you farm it out to another team then that reduces the time.


the 1 minute rule sounds like a good idea, I'd just be interested to see how many extra challenges come about if they can challenge for holding etc. which happens on every play. Adding an extra minute (possibly more with all the additional stuff that needs doing) to 50% of plays will add up very quickly.

[quote="Alpe d'Huez":2qwfmm9q][quote="jmdirt":2qwfmm9q][quote="King Boonen":2qwfmm9q]How long does an average review take?

I don't mean stop the game and spend two minutes looking at each play. A team of officials are watching the game.

You and I are in pretty much total agreement. There already IS a team of officials in NY watching every game, every play, which is something people may not realize. They just don't stop the game of play when something happens. They only take action when "buzzed in" from a field to check a call.[/quote]
I though most fans knew that, but maybe you're right. I want their role to be changed from 'buzzed in' to 'buzzing in'.[/quote]

As you're both talking about the same thing, do you think the officials in NY should make the call or the on-field team should? It stops the clock every time as well doesn't it? Won't that change the nature of the game?[/quote]
Nether do officials! :lol:
I think that Alpe and I are pretty close in our thinking, but he'll have to chime in too. I only see about 5-10 calls per game being handled differently, and of those, maybe one or two take an extra 5-30 seconds, but the actual reviews will be shorter so there game won't be any longer (I don't see more clock stoppage).

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

I will only add this to what you all wrote, but I'm also thinking you all already know, that some reviews take longer than others if the guys doing the review have to look at 1) where to spot the ball (especially if a key body part e.g. forearm-knee-butt) is partly obscured, or angles are bad, and 2) what time to reset the play clock at. Those are iterations, especially the play clock, that most fans cannot see how long it takes.

I've often wondered if the ref in the booth has multiple Windows open, or how they have to flip back & forth between views. It is possible the tools they are using are a bit cumbersome. Then I've wondered why not feed the screen view from the field booth to something like GoToMeeting so everyone, including viewers of the broadcast, like fans watching everywhere, can see what's going on. Not only might there be better accountability, but it would eliminate broadcaster speculation, and instead broadcasters have something more concrete to comment on.

To take it further for fun, it might be funny to have the ref under the hood of the field booth mic'd up. Blooper fodder.

You asked a question and then answered it. If each guy in NY does their part, those plays won't take long at all to look at especially if they use a good 'tool'.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.

You're incorrect, they have 6 Super Bowl wins which TIES them with the Steelers, however they also have MORE Super Bowl looses than the Steelers.

The NHL never had fewer than 6 teams, and before the contraction of teams before/during WWII they actually had more than 6. Before WWII Montreal had 2 teams. The Maroons were one of the teams that folded.

The Canadiens team of the 70's had 6 Stanley Cups in a 10 year span.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.

You're incorrect, they have 6 Super Bowl wins which TIES them with the Steelers, however they also have MORE Super Bowl looses than the Steelers.

The NHL never had fewer than 6 teams, and before the contraction of teams before/during WWII they actually had more than 6. Before WWII Montreal had 2 teams. The Maroons were one of the teams that folded.

The Canadiens team of the 70's had 6 Stanley Cups in a 10 year span.

Isn't there a saying: its better to have lost the bowl than never to have played at all? :lol:

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.

You must have skipped my post because I clearly typed that the Pats would have won 35-7 over the Saint...so there ya have it.

The Pats/B&B have pocked some peoples' brain quite a bit.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Just for fun, I predict next year's Super Bowl will be won by the Patriots.

I know, really went out a limb there. But I'm not joking. I don't see them regressing much at all.

Well.

This was a really weird one because the Pats were an above average team this season but not by much. They were clearly worse than the Chiefs, Chargers and Texans. I would argue that teams like the Colts and Steelers also were the same level just had much tougher schedules and divisions.

But in the playoffs, they were the best. Better than any team in the AFC, and better than any team in the NFC.
I give them that.

I think its clear though that if the regular season wasn't tilted so far in the favor of the Pats they would have been the 3rd or 4 seed. So they would have had to face 2 away games, no bye week.

And sometimes, teams that are the best in the playoffs, may struggle to overcome having to win 3 games (with everything that can go wrong in 1 game), including 2 away to get to the SB.

So what happens next season. If the Pats play the same in the regular season do they get the same easy schedule while the rest of the AFC kills eachother again? If so, yeah i see a similar Pats outcome.

If they play like they did in the playoffs the whole season, maybe they'll tire eachother out again.

Brady was also noticeably worse this season. Including nothing special in the p.o. The biggest joke of the season is that the Pats defense carrying him to the SB counts as him "michael jordaning himself to 5 rings".

Will he stay the same, improve, or with another year, maybe deteriorate even more for 2019. Bellichick might be able to carry him again but it might be even harder.

You know what, I get that people hate the Pats, but the level of nonsense people throw at them is unreal. Hitch rated them as only the 6th team in the AFC yet they beat Chiefs, Texans and Colts in the regular season. When they beat the Bears, Hitch said it was because the Bears didnt turn up, ditto for the Chargers, didn't turn up etc, etc. So all these teams don't turn up against the Pats. Rather than give credit to the Pats, it is down to other teams not performing. That is just pure bias. Look at it objectively.

All I hear is Pats have it easy because of their Division. Maybe this season, but I had a look at some stats. Over the last 5 seasons(4 Superbowls, 1 AFC Championship appearence). Pats have lost 18 regular season games, 7 of those were against their Divisional Rivals.

Record against AFC Rivals
v AFC West: 23-7
v Rest AFC: 30-6

6 losses in 5 seasons to other AFC teams, 3 of those this season, yet people are complaining about them having an easy Division every year. I won't even include the Play-offs as it becomes even more lopsided.

I also hear, oh it would be tougher in the NFC.

Record v NFC teams(5 seasons)
v NFC teams: 15-5

I guess that is a worse record than against AFC teams, but it would still put them on a 12-4 projection even if they played all NFC teams. I would imagine that would give them a high seeding most seasons.

Also claims they got lucky because they played the Rams rather than the Saints for the Superbowl. Well Rams, Chiefs and Chargers all had high octane offences and teams considered superior to the Pats, yet Behlicek & Co outschemed them all. Why would the Saints have been any different? If anything, Saints were nowhere the team they were in the regular season.

I honestly believe if Pats had a harder schedule, they would simply up their game accordingly as they did in the play-offs. Yes, they did not look great in the regular season this season, but I guess when you are contending every year for the Superbowl, regular season becomes a bit mundane.

I don't really know the history of American sports, but I do know that football always appears to have been the most competitive, especially in the salary cap era so I don't really know where the Patriots rank in the greatest team ranking. However, I did look at the Montreal Canadies history. Most of their wins were in a league with 4 or 6 teams only. Even their later titles were in a newly expanded 12 team league. Hardly a fair comparison to what the Pats have done the past 18 years.

In fairness, most posters here respect the Pats even if they don't like them, but a few can't seem to give them any credit at all. Ah well, 7 Superbowl wins, 9 appearences in 18 seasons and to think the first Patriots game I ever watched was when Bledsoe got injured and Brady took over. Had moved to the US/Maine that year. Guess I got lucky.

You're incorrect, they have 6 Super Bowl wins which TIES them with the Steelers, however they also have MORE Super Bowl looses than the Steelers.

The NHL never had fewer than 6 teams, and before the contraction of teams before/during WWII they actually had more than 6. Before WWII Montreal had 2 teams. The Maroons were one of the teams that folded.

The Canadiens team of the 70's had 6 Stanley Cups in a 10 year span.

Isn't there a saying: its better to have lost the bowl than never to have played at all? :lol:

Nope, there really isn't.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Having met and worked with a guy who played in, and lost a Super Bowl, I can 100% guarantee you he's glad he got there.

Good detective work on the pmcg7, except the SB wins. Having said that, with all the turnaround and rebuilds in that division with all three other teams, next season the Pats could go 6-0 there alone.

Once B&B are gone, even hard critics will slowly realize and have to admit just how astounding what they accomplished really is. If you look back in the same time frame, only two other teams have been there more than twice (PIT 2-1, SEA 1-2) . To achieve this level of winning, with not only a hard salary cap (as opposed to the NBA), but also free agency, plus that the average career of a player is 3.3 years, is not only unprecedented, but incomparable to other sports.

I'll bite and say the Patriots would have beaten the Saints. I'm not sure the score being a blowout, but I think they would have won. However, I also think Sean Payton is a better, more savvy and sage at least, coach than McVay, and the same goes for Brees over Goff.

 

[pmcg76]

Did I really say 7 Superbowls for the Pats, sorry thinking of next year already

This is something I really don't get about American sports either, people saying that getting to a Superbowl and losing is a bigger dent on your record than not actually making a Superbowl. I see it frequently trotted out in Brady v Montana debate's, oh Montana never lost a Superbowl whilst Brady has lost 3. To me anyways, that makes zero sense as by not making the Suprebowl, you lost as well and at an earlier stage, sometimes a much earlier stage which means you were not even good enough that season. How on earth does that equate to being better than getting to the Superbowl?

I saw some of the talking heads on the US Sports shows mention this when Pats lost last year and Brady-Behlicek were 5-3 in Superbowls, some people were suggesting if Patriots lost another one, it would be a huge black mark against them. I find that bizarre.

For example, surely it should be that the Patriots have won 11 Conference Championships versus 8 for the Steelers, giving them the superior record, rather than Patriots have lost more Superbowls.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I agree, it is pointless to penalize them for making the super bowl more and losing than not making the playoffs or losing beforehand. They got a silver medal and a conference ring.

Now if comparing Montana vs Manning, it is highly justified to bring up that Montana is 4-0 while Manning is 2-2. But you can't go Eli or Ben is better than Peyton because they all have 2 super bowl wins but those former 2 lost less than Peyton.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Having met and worked with a guy who played in, and lost a Super Bowl, I can 100% guarantee you he's glad he got there.

Good detective work on the pmcg7, except the SB wins. Having said that, with all the turnaround and rebuilds in that division with all three other teams, next season the Pats could go 6-0 there alone.

Once B&B are gone, even hard critics will slowly realize and have to admit just how astounding what they accomplished really is. If you look back in the same time frame, only two other teams have been there more than twice (PIT 2-1, SEA 1-2) . To achieve this level of winning, with not only a hard salary cap (as opposed to the NBA), but also free agency, plus that the average career of a player is 3.3 years, is not only unprecedented, but incomparable to other sports.

I'll bite and say the Patriots would have beaten the Saints. I'm not sure the score being a blowout, but I think they would have won. However, I also think Sean Payton is a better, more savvy and sage at least, coach than McVay, and the same goes for Brees over Goff.

I agree. From what the Saints produced in the playoffs, I doubt they would have won. If anything they seemed to be going off the boil. I don't think any NFL fan was surprised by the result and Patriots fans were expecting it. They could have easily lost the last three SBs but that's what makes them a great franchise. They find a way to win. Maybe the Eagles result was an anomaly ? Not really, the Eagles fully deserved their win. Can Kansas be a bigger threat next season ? Apart from them and the Rams it's hard to see where the biggest threat will come from at the moment. The Bears are probably a few seasons away.

 

[jmdirt]

The new Football Alliance has a "Sky Judge" who can buzz in...

 

[The Hitch]

Did I really say 7 Superbowls for the Pats, sorry thinking of next year already

This is something I really don't get about American sports either, people saying that getting to a Superbowl and losing is a bigger dent on your record than not actually making a Superbowl. I see it frequently trotted out in Brady v Montana debate's, oh Montana never lost a Superbowl whilst Brady has lost 3. To me anyways, that makes zero sense as by not making the Suprebowl, you lost as well and at an earlier stage, sometimes a much earlier stage which means you were not even good enough that season. How on earth does that equate to being better than getting to the Superbowl?

I saw some of the talking heads on the US Sports shows mention this when Pats lost last year and Brady-Behlicek were 5-3 in Superbowls, some people were suggesting if Patriots lost another one, it would be a huge black mark against them. I find that bizarre.

For example, surely it should be that the Patriots have won 11 Conference Championships versus 8 for the Steelers, giving them the superior record, rather than Patriots have lost more Superbowls.

Its not used that much for Brady but I have seen it.

Mostly its used for Lebron. 3-8 is it in NBA Finals. And for a decade its been - Lebron can never surpass Michael because Michael never lost in the Finals. So even if Lebron were to win 6 championship, he would be way worse because he lost a lot in the Finals, whereas Michael only lost the easier games before the finals

Never mind that a lot of Lebron's losses were to way better teams than anything Michael ever faced.

Or that it's a team sport not an individual one. Forget that.