NFL 2020 Season

[Ilikesports17]

The comeback of Alex Smith is one of the greatest comebacks in sport history, and it is seemingly flying under the radar. I saw part of the ESPN special on him regarding the multiple surgeries on his leg, and it was beyond gruesome. I don't care what Doug Pederson of Philly did with his QB's, I wanted to see Alex Smith rewarded for his unbelievable hard work and dedication to the game.

That special was crazy. The into scene was his decaying leg taking up the entire screen and only AFTER that did they flash a warning for gruesome content.

[johnnygreen]

I didn't realize it until now, but Tampa Bay is only 1-4 against teams with winning records. Heck, the Pats doubled that win total at 2-6. If the football gods can grant me one request, I would love to see Washington beat Tampa this weekend.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

I see your point, but the Pats were a legitimately good/great team in a weak division—as evidenced by their many Super Bowl appearances and wins—whereas this year's Washington team is, at best, a mediocre team in a weak division. I don't think anyone could make a valid argument that those Pats teams shouldn't have been in the playoffs, whereas this WFT squad ... very iffy.

I do like your idea of a 15-game schedule in which each team plays every conference opponent once each. And give every team a second bye week to maintain the current 17-week schedule while giving players more rest.

except New England had a disproportionate number of byes and home playoff games because the AFC East was so bad, so you have no real idea how good they actually were.  They were 4-3 in road playoff games during the entire run, winning the 1st in the 1st year and the last one against the Chiefs three seasons ago.  So during the majority of the run the Patriots were 2-3 on the road in the playoffs.  They also had byes almost every single year.  That advantage is immense season after season, and they got all those byes and home playoff games in a large part because the AFC East was downright terrible.  So Brady has just 4 true road victories in the playoffs.  As a comparison, Joe Flacco has 7, including 2 in New England (2009 and 2012).  And take 2011, New England was 13-3, Baltimore was 12-4.  So when they played in the conference championship, the game was in New England.  That year Pittsburgh was also 12-4 and Cincinnati was 9-7, both made the playoffs (the AFC East had an 8-8 team and two 6-10 teams).  New England only had to play 8-8 Denver before that game in the playoffs, while Baltimore had 10-6 Houston.  You play that game in Baltimore and it probably has a different result.  And that year, the Steelers beat the Patriots in the regular season, a team Baltimore beat twice during the regular season (Pitt's other 2 losses were on the road to 10-6 Houston and on the road against 13-3 San Fran).  And that year the two divisions that the AFC East played had division winners at 8-8 (AFC West) and 9-7 (NFC East), while Baltimore was playing the AFC South (10-6 winner) and NFC West (13-3 winner). 

So you can't have it both ways.  You can't act like there isn't a benefit when a good team plays in a bad division, but then get made when a bad division has no good teams in it.  You have to take the good with the bad and really recognize it for what it is.   

We're probably getting too far into the weeds here. My main point is that teams with losing records shouldn't make the playoffs, because they clearly are not among the best teams and don't deserve to be there. There probably will never be a perfect playoff system, as your examples highlight, but allowing losing teams to be there seems like an obvious flaw that could easily be fixed.

except it can't easily be fixed.  Either the divisions matter or they don't.  There is no real gray area there.

Okay, if you're making me choose, then I'll say divisions don't matter, or at least shouldn't matter. Get rid of divisions and go with the type of regular season you suggested and which I agree with. That would be fairer than the current system.

[RPGenerate]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

I see your point, but the Pats were a legitimately good/great team in a weak division—as evidenced by their many Super Bowl appearances and wins—whereas this year's Washington team is, at best, a mediocre team in a weak division. I don't think anyone could make a valid argument that those Pats teams shouldn't have been in the playoffs, whereas this WFT squad ... very iffy.

I do like your idea of a 15-game schedule in which each team plays every conference opponent once each. And give every team a second bye week to maintain the current 17-week schedule while giving players more rest.

except New England had a disproportionate number of byes and home playoff games because the AFC East was so bad, so you have no real idea how good they actually were.  They were 4-3 in road playoff games during the entire run, winning the 1st in the 1st year and the last one against the Chiefs three seasons ago.  So during the majority of the run the Patriots were 2-3 on the road in the playoffs.  They also had byes almost every single year.  That advantage is immense season after season, and they got all those byes and home playoff games in a large part because the AFC East was downright terrible.  So Brady has just 4 true road victories in the playoffs.  As a comparison, Joe Flacco has 7, including 2 in New England (2009 and 2012).  And take 2011, New England was 13-3, Baltimore was 12-4.  So when they played in the conference championship, the game was in New England.  That year Pittsburgh was also 12-4 and Cincinnati was 9-7, both made the playoffs (the AFC East had an 8-8 team and two 6-10 teams).  New England only had to play 8-8 Denver before that game in the playoffs, while Baltimore had 10-6 Houston.  You play that game in Baltimore and it probably has a different result.  And that year, the Steelers beat the Patriots in the regular season, a team Baltimore beat twice during the regular season (Pitt's other 2 losses were on the road to 10-6 Houston and on the road against 13-3 San Fran).  And that year the two divisions that the AFC East played had division winners at 8-8 (AFC West) and 9-7 (NFC East), while Baltimore was playing the AFC South (10-6 winner) and NFC West (13-3 winner). 

So you can't have it both ways.  You can't act like there isn't a benefit when a good team plays in a bad division, but then get made when a bad division has no good teams in it.  You have to take the good with the bad and really recognize it for what it is.   

We're probably getting too far into the weeds here. My main point is that teams with losing records shouldn't make the playoffs, because they clearly are not among the best teams and don't deserve to be there. There probably will never be a perfect playoff system, as your examples highlight, but allowing losing teams to be there seems like an obvious flaw that could easily be fixed.

except it can't easily be fixed.  Either the divisions matter or they don't.  There is no real gray area there.

So there's no grey area... because you said so? Ha! You can easily tweak how divisions work to make them more fair.

[Moranis]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

I see your point, but the Pats were a legitimately good/great team in a weak division—as evidenced by their many Super Bowl appearances and wins—whereas this year's Washington team is, at best, a mediocre team in a weak division. I don't think anyone could make a valid argument that those Pats teams shouldn't have been in the playoffs, whereas this WFT squad ... very iffy.

I do like your idea of a 15-game schedule in which each team plays every conference opponent once each. And give every team a second bye week to maintain the current 17-week schedule while giving players more rest.

except New England had a disproportionate number of byes and home playoff games because the AFC East was so bad, so you have no real idea how good they actually were.  They were 4-3 in road playoff games during the entire run, winning the 1st in the 1st year and the last one against the Chiefs three seasons ago.  So during the majority of the run the Patriots were 2-3 on the road in the playoffs.  They also had byes almost every single year.  That advantage is immense season after season, and they got all those byes and home playoff games in a large part because the AFC East was downright terrible.  So Brady has just 4 true road victories in the playoffs.  As a comparison, Joe Flacco has 7, including 2 in New England (2009 and 2012).  And take 2011, New England was 13-3, Baltimore was 12-4.  So when they played in the conference championship, the game was in New England.  That year Pittsburgh was also 12-4 and Cincinnati was 9-7, both made the playoffs (the AFC East had an 8-8 team and two 6-10 teams).  New England only had to play 8-8 Denver before that game in the playoffs, while Baltimore had 10-6 Houston.  You play that game in Baltimore and it probably has a different result.  And that year, the Steelers beat the Patriots in the regular season, a team Baltimore beat twice during the regular season (Pitt's other 2 losses were on the road to 10-6 Houston and on the road against 13-3 San Fran).  And that year the two divisions that the AFC East played had division winners at 8-8 (AFC West) and 9-7 (NFC East), while Baltimore was playing the AFC South (10-6 winner) and NFC West (13-3 winner). 

So you can't have it both ways.  You can't act like there isn't a benefit when a good team plays in a bad division, but then get made when a bad division has no good teams in it.  You have to take the good with the bad and really recognize it for what it is.   

We're probably getting too far into the weeds here. My main point is that teams with losing records shouldn't make the playoffs, because they clearly are not among the best teams and don't deserve to be there. There probably will never be a perfect playoff system, as your examples highlight, but allowing losing teams to be there seems like an obvious flaw that could easily be fixed.

except it can't easily be fixed.  Either the divisions matter or they don't.  There is no real gray area there.

So there's no grey area... because you said so? Ha! You can easily tweak how divisions work to make them more fair.

How are you going to tweak the divisions?  I mean just moving teams around won't fix anything, so what are you going to do?  Make them 8 team divisions?  And if you do that, how are you going to craft the schedule?  You really do only have the divisions and schedules that we have, or you just have to scrap divisions entirely and go to a 15 game schedule where you just play everyone in the conference 1 time and play no one from the other conference.

[gouki88]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

[Moranis]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.   

[nickagneta]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Really going full court press on trying to minimize the greatness of the Patriots over the last 19 years or so, aren't you there?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Really going full court press on trying to minimize the greatness of the Patriots over the last 19 years or so, aren't you there?

And the discussion wasn't about the Patriots to begin with; it was about the idea that teams like this year's Washington Football Team shouldn't be allowed to make the playoffs. The Pats did benefit from being in a weaker division, but they were still a great team (obviously). Whereas no one can make a good case that the WFT belongs in the playoffs—they "won" a terrible division with a bad record! lol

[RPGenerate]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Explain why the Patriots have a better win-loss percentage against 4 other divisions than against the AFC East. The thing that inflates their record is probably the fact that the Patriots have been great for the last 20 years or something like that.

https://patriotsdynasty.info/blog/2019/01-02/myth-easy-afc-east-definitive-guide

This is a great piece that destroys that nonsense that the Patriots benefited in any way by being in the AFC East, in multiple ways and various points of view.

[gouki88]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Really going full court press on trying to minimize the greatness of the Patriots over the last 19 years or so, aren't you there?

It’s because Baltimore is going to be bounced in the first round again Lamar going to be the first QB to be bounced in the first round 3 years consecutively in a half-century.

[Moranis]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Really going full court press on trying to minimize the greatness of the Patriots over the last 19 years or so, aren't you there?

The Pats were clearly a great team with the greatest QB ever, but they absolutely benefited from playing in a division that had terrible QB play and was very mediocre during the run.  Just like it isn't a coincidence that the years the Colts made the Superbowl, their division was much weaker than the years they did not make the Superbowl.  The difference of course is the AFC South often had another really good team and sometimes 2. 

You can only play who is on your schedule, but to act like playing in a division where Mark Sanchez might very well be the best QB you had to face from your division opponents isn't a benefit is just crazy. 

[Moranis]

The media outrage on Twitter right now is pretty hilarious.  I highly doubt it’d be the same if it was a 6-10 Carolina team getting screwed by an obvious tank job.

How about not going 6-10 and relying on help to make the playoffs in the first place?

I'm still p---ed that a 7-9 Pats team got hosed out of the playoffs 

I'm still annoyed that the 11-5 Pats team in 2008 got hosed out of the playoffs!

And I still say that having division winners automatically make the playoffs is a foolish idea. If an entire division stinks, all of its teams should just be left out of the playoffs.

It works the other way though as well.  Why should a team like the Patriots get rewarded for 15 years by playing in one of the worst divisions in the sport, while a team like Steelers consistently played in a division with 2 other teams that made the playoffs the same year.  Why have divisions at all?  Why not just play a 15 game schedule and play ever team in the conference 1 time and don't play anyone from the other conference?  That seems like the fairest way to do it.  Everyone has an equal shot and the seeding is perfect.  Then the Superbowl is full of even more intrigue since there is no intermixing of conferences.

Since realignment Pittsburgh has had an easier divisional slate than New England. Probably surprising, but true. Granted the North has had more variance, but the out of division win% of the non-Pittsburgh AFC north is worse than the non-Pats AFC East.

And, unsurprisingly, crickets

missed this post.

AFC North Records non-Pittsburgh and AFC East non-Patriots since 2002

2002
9-7, 7-9, 2-14 vs. 9-7, 9-7, 8-8

2003
10-6, 8-8, 5-11 vs. 10-6, 6-10, 6-10

2004
9-7, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 9-7, 4-12

2005
11-5, 6-10, 6-10 vs. 9-7, 5-11, 4-12

2006
13-3, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 6-10

2007
10-6, 7-9, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 4-12, 1-15

2008
11-5, 4-11-1, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 9-7, 7-9

2009
10-6, 9-7, 5-11 vs. 9-7, 7-9, 6-10

2010
12-4, 5-11, 4-12 vs. 11-5, 7-9. 4-12

2011
12-4, 9-7, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 6-10, 6-10

2012
10-6, 10-6, 5-11 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 6-10

2013
11-5, 8-8, 4-12 vs. 8-8, 8-8, 6-10

2014
10-5-1, 10-6, 7-9 vs. 9-7, 8-8, 4-12

2015
12-4, 5-11, 3-13 vs. 10-6, 8-8, 6-10

2016
8-8, 6-9-1, 1-15 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11

2017
9-7, 7-9, 0-16 vs. 9-7, 6-10, 5-11

2018
10-6, 7-8-1, 6-10 vs. 7-9, 6-10, 4-12

2019
14-2, 6-10, 2-14 vs. 10-6, 7-9, 5-11


I bolded the best record (and if the 2 best records, did that one as well) in each year.  Early on it was a bit closer, but of late it is clear that the AFC North has had a much better 2nd team.  The AFC North has also had the worst team a lot, which doesn't help total out of division record, of course there isn't much difference between 5-11 and 2-14 for these purposes as a good team should beat each of those teams twice, but it does affect the out of division record.

The larger point was that the AFC East rarely had a real challenger for the Patriots and almost never had any other team make the playoffs, whereas the AFC North had the Ravens and Bengals consistently make the playoffs with the Ravens even winning a Superbowl in that time period. The AFC East was just a picture of mediocrity and didn't provide a challenge at all to the Patriots, inflating their record and allowing them to get byes and home playoff games year after year.

Really going full court press on trying to minimize the greatness of the Patriots over the last 19 years or so, aren't you there?

It’s because Baltimore is going to be bounced in the first round again Lamar going to be the first QB to be bounced in the first round 3 years consecutively in a half-century.

Oh they might.  Tennessee is a tough team.  Not sure what that has to do with the AFC East being mediocre (outside of NE) for 20 years. 

Your facts are wrong.  Andy Dalton lost in WC weekend 4 straight years (would have been 5 but he got hurt in 15 and McCarron lost the 5th one).  And last year Baltimore wasn't in the 1st round at all.  I mean if you are going to take irrelevant shots at least be accurate. 

[Moranis]

Urban Meyer is assembling a coaching staff.  Looks like he is going to the Jaguars next coach though nothing official.  I guess Trevor Lawrence was too much to pass up.

[Moranis]

Predictions for the weekend slate of games.

Bills win a close one over Colts.  24-21
Seahawks beat Rams.  31-21
WFT pulls the upset on Bucs.  24-21
Baltimore wins as road favorite over Tennessee getting revenge for last year.  34-24
Saints blow out the Bears. 38-17
Steelers beat the Browns. 31-17