• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Rant; The AFC (L)East

RavensMania said:
The hatred isn’t as bad as it was prior to free agency (1994) with teams going from one team to another much easier. Prior to that even the players were into the hating of the other teams. Now it’s just for fans. Do English teams have free agency or something like that
Click to expand...
They had some kind of goofy system back before 94, prior to the newly branded premier league. I remember they had a lot of teams hoarding top talent. Nowadays players can basically get their contracts bought from another club if hey request it or the club inquires or whatever, and this goes for pretty much a few months out of the season. Then here's also the loan a player system, where you loan young players or unwanted ones to other clubs before you get them back a season later.
 
Occam's Razor...
Option 1: Pats are a well coached and talented team led by a great QB
Option 2: They are only successful because of the other teams in their division.

The simplest answer is usually the best one.

(for those slow on the uptake, option 1 is the simple answer)
 
flynismo said:
Occam's Razor...
Option 1: Pats are a well coached and talented team led by a great QB
Option 2: They are only successful because of the other teams in their division.

The simplest answer is usually the best one.

(for those slow on the uptake, option 1 is the simple answer)
Click to expand...
Option 1 is the correct answer. No one is saying brady isn’t a great qb and that B.B. isn’t a great coach.
 
flynismo said:
Occam's Razor...
Option 1: Pats are a well coached and talented team led by a great QB
Option 2: They are only successful because of the other teams in their division.

The simplest answer is usually the best one.

(for those slow on the uptake, option 1 is the simple answer)
Click to expand...
Option 1 is the correct answer. No one is saying brady isn’t a great qb and that B.B. isn’t a great coach.
 
Would the Pats have 10 consecutive division titles if they were in a different division? Hard to say, but I think the number would be close and they would still be making the playoffs every year. As much as I hate the Pats and love to discredit them with things like Spygate, Deflategate, etc., they have the best coach of probably all-time to go along with probably the best QB of all-time. Trying to pin their success on the division they play in is just a bullshit narrative because this team would still be winning regardless.
 
it’s hard for me to blame the Pats. They have managed to create a dynasty in an era of parity in the NFL. Two words: Belichick and Brady. And an owner who doesn’t meddle in player personnel issues.

Since 1960 they have won 5 SB, played in 8. All under Belichick, with Brady as QB. They have made the playoff all but 4 seasons since Belichick arrived in 2000. Impressive.

Have they benefited from poor division completion? Sure, but you don’t go to 8 SBs by just beating up on bad teams in your division.
 
Tank said:
Right. But that wasn't the question.
Click to expand...
If the question was something about how much of their dynasty is attributable to their weak division, then I'd say very little, if any. Their dynasty was built on postseason success. They beat up on tons of great teams, not just the scrubs in their division. Us Ravens fans should already be painfully aware of that fact.
 
flynismo said:
If the question was something about how much of their dynasty is attributable to their weak division, then I'd say very little, if any. Their dynasty was built on postseason success. They beat up on tons of great teams, not just the scrubs in their division. Us Ravens fans should already be painfully aware of that fact.
Click to expand...
Fair enough of an opinion and totally agree BB is the best, but IMO playing in such a weak division has to have benefits including less wear and tear on players and an easier road to home playoff games. Obviously those things have to be of help in the post season where every little bit matters.
 
Tank said:
Fair enough of an opinion and totally agree BB is the best, but IMO playing in such a weak division has to have benefits including less wear and tear on players and an easier road to home playoff games. Obviously those things have to be of help in the post season where every little bit matters.
Click to expand...

i think the wear and tear is probably the easiest - and the fact that even when they are working out their team chemistry in september and maybe having that stretch early on where they go 1-3 or 2-2 or whatever they are never far back in the division because the rest of the division is never good enough to string enough wins together

that being said these are very minor things that help them but not in any significant way, maybe it's the difference between getting the 2 seed and homefield advantage or its the difference between getting the 3 seed and the bye but ultimately they also have to beat 2 better teams a year than other teams because they always win the division so they always play the previous year's best teams in the AFC... so there is a negative trade off in terms of strength of schedule

there's a combination of factors but they aren't all equal - even if you think it helps them - the sheer level of consistency even so is unambiguous and remarkable in a league where everything promotes parity
 
Tank said:
Fair enough of an opinion and totally agree BB is the best, but IMO playing in such a weak division has to have benefits including less wear and tear on players and an easier road to home playoff games. Obviously those things have to be of help in the post season where every little bit matters.
Click to expand...
What is going on around here my friend?
You noticed how much love for NE is around here?
 
SaltyDog said:
it’s hard for me to blame the Pats. They have managed to create a dynasty in an era of parity in the NFL. Two words: Belichick and Brady. And an owner who doesn’t meddle in player personnel issues.

Since 1960 they have won 5 SB, played in 8. All under Belichick, with Brady as QB. They have made the playoff all but 4 seasons since Belichick arrived in 2000. Impressive.

Have they benefited from poor division completion? Sure, but you don’t go to 8 SBs by just beating up on bad teams in your division.
Click to expand...
They played in a Super Bowl in 1985-86 and got wooped by the Bears, so all 8 of their SB's weren't under BB and Brady. Agree with everything else you are saying.
 
RavensMania said:
They played in a Super Bowl in 1985-86 and got wooped by the Bears, so all 8 of their SB's weren't under BB and Brady. Agree with everything else you are saying.
Click to expand...

To be completely correct they have played in 10 SBs since 1960. 8 of those 10 under Belichick, from 2000 to present. They played and lost to the packers in SB 31, 1996 season.
 
Last edited:
SaltyDog said:
To be completely correct they have played in 10 SBs since 1960. 8 of those 10 under Belichick, from 2000 to present. They played and lost to the packers in SB 36, 1996 season.
Click to expand...
they weren't super bowls until 1966 to be technical. forgot about the packers super bowl. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top