Rams trade for Brandon cooks

[YayMike]

Per ESPN.

Looks like a first is going back to New England

[KranzDictum]

Originally Posted by BossChief

We didn’t have to give up anything to get Sammy and he’s gonna force defenses to make decisions on who they are gonna leave single covered. No defense in the NFL has the talent to cover all of KCs weapons. Especially with Mahomes back there.

Hunt
Watkins
Conley
Kelce
Hill

Mahomes should be able to KILL defenses with audibles.

Conley.

Only loss thinks teams are afraid of Conley

[Pasta Little Brioni]

He's as good as anything you have in Pile High. Both of your WR almost got cut because they are old, declining.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

They are still cheating, you realize that right? They got a slap on the wrist and just kept on going.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Their EVERYTHING is the best in football during the Brady years. Sure, the division has mostly been crap, but the Patriots have won at a pretty unprecedented rate across any category you can think of.

Nobody is saying they have not been a powerhouse- but playing in the weakest division in football sets them up every year. Plus that Home Field advantage in the Playoffs has been crucial to their success.

Funny that after all the winning you can't take the slightest critic on your team, even if it is true.

Seriously, do you think the Pats would still have the record for straight division titles if they played in the NFC North? How about the AFC West?
Definitely not in the NFC East- we know you have struggled against the Giants and Eagles.

The Pats have a huge advantage being in a weak division and to their credit, have taken advantage of it better than anyone in NFL history.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

They are still cheating, you realize that right? They got a slap on the wrist and just kept on going.

OF COURSE they are. That's why they keep winning!!!

(whatever makes you happy)

[Pasta Little Brioni]

He acts like he's part of the team So pathetic

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Nobody is saying they have not been a powerhouse- but playing in the weakest division in football sets them up every year. Plus that Home Field advantage in the Playoffs has been crucial to their success.

Funny that after all the winning you can't take the slightest critic on your team, even if it is true.

Seriously, do you think the Pats would still have the record for straight division titles if they played in the NFC North? How about the AFC West?
Definitely not in the NFC East- we know you have struggled against the Giants and Eagles.

The Pats have a huge advantage being in a weak division and to their credit, have taken advantage of it better than anyone in NFL history.

NFC North? Swap the Packers for the Patriots and the Patriots would have dominated the NFC North JUST LIKE THEY DID THE AFC EAST. I don't believe the Patriots have struggled against the NFC East other than in the playoffs. Keep in mind the Patriots have a winning record during the BB/Brady years against EVERY team in the NFL other than the Broncos.

Has the non-Pats AFC East been as strong as the AFC North or the NFC East? No. But you're painting it as if they have been the VASTLY weak step-sister of the NFL among divisions, and that's not really true.

This is two years out of date now, but check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Patriots/co...cessful_while/

It shows the inter-division games for each team during the first 14 Brady years. Ignore the top team (Patriots, etc.) in each division and you can see that the AFC East is CLEARLY

1. not as good as the AFC North, NFC East or NFC South.

2. about the same as the AFC West

3. clearly better than the AFC South, NFC West and NFC North.


Unless you think won-loss record in inter-division games isn't a good way to compare performance over the years.

Perhaps the problem is that over the BB/Brady years, the other AFC East teams have been pretty consistently medicore, but rarely either very good or truly awful. In the other divisions, for the most part, the other teams have seen more ups and downs. For example, the Bears only have a .507 record durign the period, but they were pretty solid during the Urlacher years, even making a SB (perhaps the worst SB team of the last 25 years however).

Again....

[Halfcan]

Jets 70 70 .500
Dolphins 67 73 .479
Bills 61 79 .436

The second best team in your division over that time period has an average record with the other two teams below average.

Plus they have been terrible in the draft and have not had a franchise QB between them. Besides making a few expensive FA splashes here and there- have not consistently built a winning team in any cohesive fashion.

I am not sure how this helps your argument against the Pats having a great advantage playing in a very weak division-consistently the most underachieving and mediocre or below for sure. The Pats simply have no other team that can compete with them in their own division or even one that has had a hot streak.

But Props to the Pats- they take every edge and keep on winning.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Jets 70 70 .500
Dolphins 67 73 .479
Bills 61 79 .436

The second best team in your division over that time period has an average record with the other two teams below average.

Plus they have been terrible in the draft and have not had a franchise QB between them. Besides making a few expensive FA splashes here and there- have not consistently built a winning team in any cohesive fashion.

I am not sure how this helps your argument against the Pats having a great advantage playing in a very weak division-consistently the most underachieving and mediocre or below for sure. The Pats simply have no other team that can compete with them in their own division or even one that has had a hot streak.

But Props to the Pats- they take every edge and keep on winning.

Because that is pretty much AVERAGE for teams 2-4 in each division over those 14 years. For example:

AFC South (excluding Colts):


Titans 67 73 .479
Texans 62 78 .443
Jaguars 58 82 .414


AFC North (Excluding Broncos):

Chargers 72 68 .514
Chiefs 68 72 .486
Raiders 46 94 .329


NFC North (Excluding Packers):

Bears 71 69 .507
Vikings 67 73 .479
Lions 50 90 .357

NFC West (excluding SEahawks):

Cardinals 65 75 .464
49ers 60 80 .429
Rams 52 88 .371

[Amnorix]

Let me rephrase it, perhaps -- what you're saying is that the AFC East other than the Patriots has SUCKED for the duration of the BB/Brady era, and this has substantially helped the Patriots succeed.

What I'm saying is that that the Packers (NFC North), Broncos (AFC West), Seahawks (NFC West) and ESPECIALLY the Colts (AFC South) have had about the same quality of in-division competition as the Patriots have had with the AFC East.

And the "proof" is in the records of those teams against teams outside their divisions.


MEANWHILE, the Patriots had an ABSURD 106-34 record against NON-AFC East teams durign that same period, for a win percentage of .757.

So it's not that the AFC East is especially weak so much as the Patriots are just ridiculously consistent.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

Like continue to get rid of his best offensive linemen and give him a receiving corp full of undersized slapdicks every year? The only thing Bill does for Brady is keep McDouche around and give him free reign on that side of the ball. Without that offense that team would be in the shitter.

So...bill coaches well and knows how to out coordinators and players in a position to succeed?
Posted via Mobile Device

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Red Dawg

I just believe that players are more important than coaches. They are ones on the field and we have scene crap coaches win the SB with good players they inherited. Switzer, Dungy, Gruden come to mind. Bill was a loser witbout Btady. So yeah, Brady is Bills ticket.

Bill had the Browns winning and playing well before Moddell ****ed everything up and announced he was moving the team.

You ignore that he went 11-5 with Matt Cassel and got a certain dumb ass franchise to trade for him.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Because that is pretty much AVERAGE for teams 2-4 in each division over those 14 years. For example:

AFC South (excluding Colts):


Titans 67 73 .479
Texans 62 78 .443
Jaguars 58 82 .414


AFC North (Excluding Broncos):

Chargers 72 68 .514
Chiefs 68 72 .486
Raiders 46 94 .329


NFC North (Excluding Packers):

Bears 71 69 .507
Vikings 67 73 .479
Lions 50 90 .357

NFC West (excluding SEahawks):

Cardinals 65 75 .464
49ers 60 80 .429
Rams 52 88 .371

Could those records have anything to do with the fact those teams play each other extremely tight?

Every team in the AFC West has had hot streaks-plus 3 of the 4 (excluding the Chiefs) have had Franchise QBS.

NFC West- Rams and Cardinals have had some great years, plus the Seahawks won a Superbowl and went to another. Even the lowly 49ers seem to play the Seahawks tough every year.

NFC North- the black and blue division- Lions have a Franchise QB in Stafford, Bears had some great defenses, Packers have Rodgers- Skins have been average but at least been competitive and fielded a few decent teams.

AFC had Manning all those years which skewed those records- but the Texans have been fantastic on defense and in the playoffs, the Jags D has been better and they have made a lot of Free agent splashes, and the Titans are always an average but very tough team to play.

Now, look at the Pats Division in which they have dominated by winning 15 of 18 titles in the Brady years. They have the best QB and Coach of all time while the other three teams have had mediocre to shitty QBs and Coaches. The Bills, Jets and Dolphins have had years where their defense have been good enough to finish above .500 but have been poor drafting and each year are out of the division race by the Pats bye week. The Pats have not had much competition from the teams in their own division and it is a Huge advantage.

The Pats have had the perfect combination of Great Coach, QB and weak division opponents to build their dynasty.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Could those records have anything to do with the fact those teams play each other extremely tight?

Not sure I understand this point. These are the records of the various teams playing teams OUTSIDE their own division.

Every team in the AFC West has had hot streaks-plus 3 of the 4 (excluding the Chiefs) have had Franchise QBS.

I would agree that the other divisions have seen different teams in the bottom 3 cycle up/down MORE than the AFC East. As I said before, the AFC East has been sort of consistently mediocre, whereas teams like the Bears, RAiders, Cardinals, Titans have seen "higher highs and lower lows" so to speak.

NFC West- Rams and Cardinals have had some great years, plus the Seahawks won a Superbowl and went to another. Even the lowly 49ers seem to play the Seahawks tough every year.

errr...IGNORE the best team in each division... But obviously the 49ers went a SB in 2012 and had some good years under Harbaugh. That said, the Dolphins tend to play the Patriots tough each year, especially in Miami. Not sure the Pats have much better htan a .500 record in Miami over Brady's seasons.

NFC North- the black and blue division- Lions have a Franchise QB in Stafford, Bears had some great defenses, Packers have Rodgers- Skins have been average but at least been competitive and fielded a few decent teams.

Please. The Lions have SUCKED for 25 years and you know it. The Jets went to an AFCCG and beat the Pats to do it in 2010, but I'm not pretending they've been much better than a joke either.

Packers have Rodgers, BUT THAT IS THE POINT -- the Packers have NOT had a tougher field inside their division, on balance, than the Patriots have. Switch Patriots for Packers in their respective divisions, and I think it all stays the same.

Same for Pats for Colts in AFC South, or Pats for Seahawks in NFC West.

AFC had Manning all those years which skewed those records- but the Texans have been fantastic on defense and in the playoffs, the Jags D has been better and they have made a lot of Free agent splashes, and the Titans are always an average but very tough team to play.

Wait, what? How does Manning "skew" the AFC south but Brady doesn't skew AFC East? Or are you misreading the chart? IGNORES intra-division gaames and is only an outside-the-division record.

The Pats have had the perfect combination of Great Coach, QB and weak division opponents to build their dynasty.

Agree on coach QB. Disagree on final point. Bottom line is that their outside-the-division record shows that teh Patriots had it no easier than Favre/Rodgers in Green Bay, or Manning in Indy, really.

[Halfcan]

Okay, you win- getting to play the hapless Jets, Dolphins, and Bills for 6 pretty much guaranteed wins every year has NO advantage whatsoever in winning the division, having a winning record, making the playoffs, getting home-field advantage and being set up with a 2 win and you are into the Superbowl equation.

It is hard to have a conversation with another fan when they believe their team is Perfect in every single way, have always had the hardest road to victory, never had any kind of advantage, overcome every obstacle without even the slightest edge.

Congrats ahead of time- we already know the Pats will be no less than 6-10 next year by winning all division games. Not because the Jets, Bills and Dolphins are still shitty-no- it is because the Pats are just that freaking perfect. Another year, another easy division title to extend their record.