Buffalo03

He still took a crappy to mediocre cowboys team that I don't think made the playoffs for like 5 straight seasons before he got there and took them to the playoff his first season with them with a terrible QB. He had some bad seasons with the Giants to but still won 2 SBs with them. He got to New England without Belichick his first few years there and turned them into a contending team after they were awful for a while and that was while Belichick was in Cleveland. I understand Belichick is Belichick but the guy was nothing more than an assistant with any of those Parcells teams. A DC or assistant isn't gonna turn an entire team into a great team. It was Parcells, not as much Belichick

Dick Jauron? You can't make that comparison. Bill Parcells is a HOF coach with a proven track record with multiple teams. The guy turned around every franchise he was a part of. Dave Campo did nothing with Quincy before he got there. How about Jimmy Johnson? You can argue he was just meh with Miami but I think Jimmy should be in the hall for what he did with the Cowboys. Parcells still had 2 playoff appearances in Dallas. I'd be willing to bet a crappy coach or even mediocre coach doesn't make the playoffs with Quincy

He turned the Cowboys around his very first year there. The guy took Quincy Carter to the playoffs. Enough said

Anytime the Pats have made the Super Bowl they have been a number 1 or 2 seed. They have never made the Super Bowl when less than a 2 seed

The Dolphins were good back then to. So we at least played against another team twice a year that was a great team. The Pats have not had to worry about one great Dolphins, Bills or Jets team at all in the 20 years they have been dominant

Dee Ford is the reason for that

So you don't think 6 games a year against the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals would have made any difference? Those have been much better teams than the Jets, Bills and Dolphins. I don't think 9 Super Bowl apparences is possible in that division

They only play 2 opponents per year that are different than what the rest of the division plays. Every team in the division plays one whole other division and one whole NFC division.

Those extra regular season losses lead to less number 1 and number 2 seeds every year in the playoffs though

I was thinking today, what if the Pats didn't have 6 games a year against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets? Let's say they switched places with the Browns and were in the AFC North with the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. Are they still as good today? I think it's possible that they may have gone to a few Super Bowls but not 9. I personally think 6 guaranteed wins every year against the AFC East or 5-1 or 4-2 at the very worst has had a lot to do with their dominance. If they played 6 games a year against the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, I honestly think they lose an extra 2 to 3 wins a year just from being in a much tougher division. I know them being in the AFC East is no fault of their own. However, I don't see the dominance they have had the last 20 years outside of the East

I think it was the most boring. The next I would have to say was the Ravens and Giants in SB XXXV

That play where Goff got drilled out of bounds, if that was Brady, that's a flag for sure

The bottom line is, Gilmore held Cook's arm which allowed him not to get his other hand up to catch it. It was even brought up by Romo. Gilmore also never looked back for the ball. If it's called PI like it should have been, it would have been first and goal at the 1. Plain and simple

Sure they were. I would love for the same people that praise Belichick for this to give McDermott credit for the same thing if he was to do it. Beat all the teams you should beat and then get destroyed by the good ones and say "But they were 11-5". I bet most of those people would find a way to say that his wins were non impressive because most were against non playoff teams. But this is Belichick were talking about so everything he does is impressive

I get that. But you can't say "oh, look what he did without Brady" when 9 out of 11 wins came against non playoff teams 4 of which were 5-11 or worse and then 4 out of 5 losses against teams that did go to the playoffs and 3 of those teams they got destroyed by. With that kind of schedule any good coach could have done the same thing.

They went 11-5 in 2008 but only beat two teams with a winning record and those teams were only 9-7 Cardinals and then the 11-5 Dolphins (who actually destroyed the Patriots in New England). The Cardinals game was a late season blizzard in New England. The Dolphins who made the playoffs but weren't a very good team themselves coming off a 1-15 season the year before. They won 8 of 11 games against teams with losing records and another against the Jets who went 9-7 but missed the playoffs as well. 4 of those games against teams with losing records went 5-11 or worse. The teams they beat were a combined 71-105. Ironically, out of Their 5 losses, 4 of them came against teams with winning records and 3 of those losses were a 38-13 loss in New England to the Dolphins, a 30-10 loss to the Chargers and a 33-10 loss to the Steelers. Their record against teams they lost to were 52-28 I hate how people talk about how Belichick went 11-5 without Brady. They had an extremely easy schedule and lost to really good teams. Three of those teams they got destroyed by. So how good were they really?

I'd rather try to make a run at DeMarcus Lawrence. Will probably be more expensive though

I want no part of him anywhere near this team unless he is playing a game against us on the opposing team. Our team is way to classy to have this douchebag on it. No way

Favorite classic Geico commercial? I have to go with Maxwell the pig saying "weeeeeeeee". Or the Moose hump day commercial. Those are my two faves. Both were on today. I also love the "Bob Weadababyeetsaboy" one as well lol

How about the Giants D daring us to run at them since the first play of the game by playing with only 2 Dlineman and the Bills just doing nothing but passing the ball constantly? Belichick said himself he prayed that we didn't run on them from the start because it would have been bad. Thurman Thomas had only 15 carries and ran for like 140 yards. If the Bills weren't stubborn and ran the ball more like they should have then we may have a Super Bowl trophy in Buffalo

Since the start of the 2003 season, West Coast teams have gone just 61-111 (35.5%) against East Coast teams. That seemingly reveals a significant advantage, but straight up wins and losses don’t provide a realistic measure of performance. Instead, we have focused on against the spread (ATS) records which indicate how well teams have performed against expectations this is from an article written in 2016 so I'm not sure what the record is now but 50 games below .500 in 16 years is a proven fact

I agree. It has nothing to do with how bad they are getting beat but just the fact that in the playoffs they would make a west coast team play back to back weeks at 1pm eastern time

Dude, it's a proven fact, west coast teams don't play well when they have to travel out east because of the time difference. Last week they had the Colts vs Texans as the Saturday 4pm game when they could have made that Chargers vs Ravens. The Chargers had to Travel east to play the Ravens and then travel back west only to turn around and travel back east again. That's a lot to ask

The Chargers did kind of get shafted having to travel east for a 1pm game twice. Not saying that it would have made a huge difference but it's kind of messed up that the league did that to them in back to back weeks

Vegas won't know what the hell to do