U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2016, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,644 posts, read 4,233,952 times
Reputation: 4595

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88 View Post
No excuse for a team that won the Super Bowl the prior year to miss the playoffs. It will help with parity in the NFL, but speaks more to how that team was built. Kansas City made a statement last night by stomping Denver.
Unless said Super Bowl team lost their QB and their backup QB...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2016, 09:01 AM
 
1,587 posts, read 989,423 times
Reputation: 2993
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Panthers..were on a good run..
That's how I perceived the 2015 Panthers..

sCam had an unusually good season last year. But looking at his stats (before & after 2015), he's a pretty average NFL QB (58% career completion, more losing seasons than winning).
I think sCam's reputation benefits from his collegiate success, and the regard fans have for his size and strength. But at the NFL level, his career passing stats are pretty ordinary. And he's been inconsistent this year..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,293,753 times
Reputation: 37479
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
None of that changes the fact that the Pats haven't faced consistently good competition in their division really in the BB-Brady era. That has no doubt contributed to the Pats success. It doesn't take away anything from the Pats; they still had to win their games, but it certainly helped them that the rest of the division was perennially and collectively an 8-8 or worse division over the 15 or so seasons.
That excuse would make sense if the Patriots weren't 22-9 in the postseason over the same time-span. A team that was making the postseason on the backs of a soft division wouldn't be winning 71% of its games against teams that made the postseason. If that was the case, you'd expect to see a number of one-and-dones by New England. But you haven't - they're a rather amazing 11-2 in their first postseason game since 2001.

The AFC East outside of New England has been mediocre for 16 years in large part because the other teams have to play New England twice every season. The Patriots haven't taken numerous seasons off where they fell out of playoff contention without winning records - like every other team in the NFL has. The AFC East minus New England has a better total record since 2002 than the AFC South minus Indianapolis, the NFC North minus Green Bay, and the NFC West minus Seattle. It's easy to point out that the rest of a division outside of a team that is dominating that division over a time isn't doing as well as the dominating team - those facts usually go together.

Since the NFL realigned into its current divisions in 2002 thru week 16 of the 2016 season, the Patriots are a combined 69-20 against AFC East teams (winning percentage .775) and a combined 115-35 against non-AFC East teams (winning percentage .767). Really? A 1% difference has boosted New England? Seriously?

That .767 winning percentage leads the next-best team during the current divisional alignment by a mile. For comparative purposes, the 2nd-best team outside of its division since 2002 is Indianapolis - 93-57 (winning percentage .620). No other team can quite get to 60%.

Regardless of the quality of the AFC East (and to reiterate - the rest of the division would have had a better decade and a half if they weren't stuck playing a team that posts a winning record every single year, and usually wins 12 or more games twice/season), there is no factual basis for asserting or insinuating that New England has boosted its record against those clubs. It hasn't. It is dominating the rest of the NFL just as thoroughly as it is dominating Buffalo/Miami/NY Jets.

It's just math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Unless said Super Bowl team lost their QB and their backup QB...
And really, if Denver wins next weekend they'll be 9-7. It's not like that's some epic freefall from last year's 12-4. Rookie quarterback, injury issues - take those into account and a three-game dip is well within the pattern of normal variation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 11:07 AM
 
94 posts, read 50,790 times
Reputation: 97
Go.......... Patriots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 11:16 AM
 
16,532 posts, read 21,003,542 times
Reputation: 47991
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Unless said Super Bowl team lost their QB and their backup QB...

That Super Bowl club also lost their best run stopper on the line-Malik Jackson to free agency. Their second best linebacker also went via free agency--Danny Trevathen. Special teams and back up backer also went via free agency-David Bruton. IIRC there were 6 players that signed with other clubs. That type of stuff will happen when a club wins a Super Bowl. And when a club DOES win one and player's contracts are up, they want to hit the lottery. Von Miller did.


1 player short of a complete house cleaning was involved on the offensive line from last year. This years offensive line was just simply offensive. There will be another house cleaning, and quite probably another casualty there will be the offensive line coach.


C.J. Anderson was lost early in the season. Ronnie Hilman probably should not have been let go. You need a stallion in the backfield, the Broncos don't have one.


Denver had a lot of breaks go their way last season. They will lose more locker room leadership when Demarcus Ware retires. It might even come next year.

Last edited by DOUBLE H; 12-26-2016 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 06:03 PM
 
357 posts, read 156,219 times
Reputation: 277
I'll give Denver a pass because of the QB transition. Not only that but their RB situation has been ineffective without CJ Anderson. In '17 they'll have a good opportunity to split him with Booker & Bibbs. They also caught a bad break with the schedule. I would've liked to see them use Lynch more and get him some experience but they're in good shape moving forward. They're a prime candidate for a huge bounceback in '17.

Carolina did nothing to address the gaping hole in their secondary. There wasn't an expectation to win 15 games again but they should've been competing for a playoff spot. However there's a lot of blame assigned to the offense too. Cam and the receiving game has been a disappointment this year. They've got to straighten all of this out in the offseason because next year will be another dogfight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Trumbull/Danbury
6,553 posts, read 4,506,707 times
Reputation: 2488
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyronejacobs0 View Post
Panthers have NO excuse as for broncos well its trevor siamons first year! People need to give it time,having one bad season as a starter doesn't mean he sucks!

I still think next year denver will be back on top,cj anderson be healthy and i believe elway will get trevor in a better position to be a leader..

Yes they do it's "Last season was a complete fluke" excuse. Watching the Ravens/Steelers game yesterday I think it was I got very intrigued by 1 stat I saw on the bottom scroll and had to rewind my TV 2 or 3 times to make sure what I actually saw was correct. That stat said Carolina Panthers had clinched their 4th losing season in the last 6 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 05:53 AM
 
9,585 posts, read 8,903,892 times
Reputation: 5814
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
I think every team has excuses but no team uses them. You only hear them from the media and the fan base. Its fair to argue them.. Its not uncommon for 1 of the Super Bowl teams to miss the playoffs the following season, in fact its becoming quite common.. but for both to miss.. this might be a first?

As some one who is a fan of the constant NFL Churn... I have no problem with the Broncos/Panthers missing the playoffs...
Which is again...why when you get a window you need to jump through..there may not be a next year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 08:17 AM
Status: "Fill the days." (set 2 hours ago)
 
Location: Fredericksburg/Virginia Beach, VA
10,708 posts, read 11,116,348 times
Reputation: 14113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
That excuse would make sense if the Patriots weren't 22-9 in the postseason over the same time-span. A team that was making the postseason on the backs of a soft division wouldn't be winning 71% of its games against teams that made the postseason. If that was the case, you'd expect to see a number of one-and-dones by New England. But you haven't - they're a rather amazing 11-2 in their first postseason game since 2001.

The AFC East outside of New England has been mediocre for 16 years in large part because the other teams have to play New England twice every season. The Patriots haven't taken numerous seasons off where they fell out of playoff contention without winning records - like every other team in the NFL has. The AFC East minus New England has a better total record since 2002 than the AFC South minus Indianapolis, the NFC North minus Green Bay, and the NFC West minus Seattle. It's easy to point out that the rest of a division outside of a team that is dominating that division over a time isn't doing as well as the dominating team - those facts usually go together.

Since the NFL realigned into its current divisions in 2002 thru week 16 of the 2016 season, the Patriots are a combined 69-20 against AFC East teams (winning percentage .775) and a combined 115-35 against non-AFC East teams (winning percentage .767). Really? A 1% difference has boosted New England? Seriously?

That .767 winning percentage leads the next-best team during the current divisional alignment by a mile. For comparative purposes, the 2nd-best team outside of its division since 2002 is Indianapolis - 93-57 (winning percentage .620). No other team can quite get to 60%.

Regardless of the quality of the AFC East (and to reiterate - the rest of the division would have had a better decade and a half if they weren't stuck playing a team that posts a winning record every single year, and usually wins 12 or more games twice/season), there is no factual basis for asserting or insinuating that New England has boosted its record against those clubs. It hasn't. It is dominating the rest of the NFL just as thoroughly as it is dominating Buffalo/Miami/NY Jets.

It's just math.
This is all nice and good, but it doesn't change that a lack of consistently good competition has propped an already good team's success. I think the Pats are great. I think being able to accomplish what they have since 2001 is incredible. I think the hate people display for that team is in a small way a microcosm of what is wrong with our country: success breeds contempt. Aren't we supposed to strive for success? Shouldn't we admire those who are successful and try to be successful ourselves in our own endeavors? We've vilified success in this country and that attitude carries into sports where teams like the Pats are hated because of their success. I'm not that kind of fan. I think they're an admirable institution and it's a point of pride for this Broncos fan that my team is the only team that has consistently been successful against the Pats in this era (3-1 in the playoffs, 2-0 in the AFCCG).

With that said, a simple look at the standings reveals that while the Pats have been great, they've presided over a division that is mediocre at best. Since 2001 the AFC East has sent just 7 WC teams to the playoffs, and 2 of them came in 2001 when it was easier for a 3rd place team to reach a WC berth. That means since realignment (2002 and a more apples to apples comparison) the division has had just 5 WC teams, counting this season. By comparison the AFC West has had 4 in just the past 5 seasons, the era in which the Broncos were considered contenders again.

This goes a long way toward explaining that playoff record as because the Pats have never had to open the playoffs on the road. They've not reached the Super Bowl without the benefit of a first round bye, and have opened in the divisional round 11 seasons including 2016. Again, that's what teams are supposed to do: play themselves into an advantageous position come playoff time. You do that by being good, but only a complete and totally blinded homer would deny the Pats have received a boost i that endeavor by playing largely sub-par competition in its division since 2001. The division just hasnt been that good outside the Pats. The Dolphins and Jets have both had a couple decent seasons but that sort of flash in the pan has been the exception not the rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post


And really, if Denver wins next weekend they'll be 9-7. It's not like that's some epic freefall from last year's 12-4. Rookie quarterback, injury issues - take those into account and a three-game dip is well within the pattern of normal variation.
On this we agree. Even a drop off from Champs to 8-8 wouldn't be that abnormal. The narrative surrounding the Broncos coming into this season was they'd be a 7-9 to 9-7 team at best. I dismissed the analysts who made these claims (there were a lot of similar claims going into 2015) but this year the expert guess work proved accurate. The team has some changes to address and I hope they get it right this off season. The good news is since Elway's return the Broncos have been one of the most well run teams in all of organized sports. The Broncos won't sit back and accept a season like this one without trying to address the problems. I expect they'll be in the thick of things again in 2017.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,644 posts, read 4,233,952 times
Reputation: 4595
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp03 View Post
Which is again...why when you get a window you need to jump through..there may not be a next year.
Since 1920, there has ALWAYS been a NEXT YEAR!

There is always a NEXT COACH or NEXT QB.. that doesn't mean they will be great but if all your interested in is winning and Super Bowls then your going to be sorely disappointed. I learned a long to time ago to appreciate each and every win regardless of the scenario and not fret too long with each loss.

If its all or nothing, then why bother.... ?? Why watch the NFL draft or pay attention to the off season free agents, buy season tix.. if its ALL OR NOTHING.. why bother. If i had that attitude I would have STOPPED Watching the NFL after 'The Catch' in the 1981 NFC Championship game.. (Lord knows i wanted to) because it was basically the end of a Dynasty... why bother.. if i had stopped then, i would have missed 3 Super Bowls in the 1990s...

Obviously there are NO GUARANTEES that success one season will lead to success the next. But as much as we ridicule the Cleveland Browns, many of their fans have seen championships and success... and they likely will again.. so UNLESS this is the FINAL YEAR OF THE NFL.. there is ALWAYS GONNA BE A NEXT YEAR!

Besides, there is SOMETHING to be said about watching your favorite team struggle for years or decades before finally seeing them win it all.. I know that feels a helluva lot better to them than to someone who only roots for winners. I don't think many fans truly appreciate what that feels like to lose year after year. They simply find a new sexy team to root for..... personally, i would rather root for one team and suffer 50 years of losing vs changing teams every few years just so that i could root for a winner...

If all your team does is win (trust me, i know exactly what that feels like) then winning holds little value... The regular season means little and winning is expected but when wins are tougher to come by, then those wins are cherished. Trust me, no one wants their team to win the Super Bowl more than me but if they never win another, i'm ok with that.. because i have seen my team win a Super Bowl (more than 1 actually) and i am not sure winning another would be any more special than the 1st one was. I think it was Duane Thomas who said, "IF its the Ultimate Game then why are they playing it again NEXT YEAR." There is that word again.. NEXT YEAR. There will always be a NEXT YEAR!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top