The Big Cat Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's a pretty easy prediction to make... Likely: 1. Patriots 2. Jets 3. Dolphins 4. Bills Like most years. All we can do is hope Brady gets injured, the Jets implode, the Dolphins implode, and the Bills get lucky, or something. Ah yes, projecting the future based on the past. How come you didn't account for our sweep of Miami in 2013? Or the fact that they have no linebackers? Or running back? Or haven't figured out how to effectively use their best/only offensive weapon? Why didn't you account for the utterly atrocious secondary in New York? Or their brewing QB controversy? Or what appears to be the twilight of the Rex Ryan era? Did you consider the woefully suspect defensive line in New England? The fact that they have no running backs who can't fumble? That their best offensive weapon has a broken back? It could very well play out like you say, but it's just as likely (more likely, probably) that the winds of change are blowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 If the Pats* win the AFC East this year, it'll be their sixth consecutive division title. I'd say it's pretty close to a fact they'll win it next year too (assuming Brady remains healthy). 2016 starts to get a little cloudy....some day the Jets might figure out how to acquire skill position players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I'm a homer and will always place the Bills above Miami and the NYETS until they get a HoF QB on their roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Ah yes, projecting the future based on the past. How come you didn't account for our sweep of Miami in 2013? Or the fact that they have no linebackers? Or running back? Or haven't figured out how to effectively use their best/only offensive weapon? Why didn't you account for the utterly atrocious secondary in New York? Or their brewing QB controversy? Or what appears to be the twilight of the Rex Ryan era? Did you consider the woefully suspect defensive line in New England? The fact that they have no running backs who can't fumble? That their best offensive weapon has a broken back? It could very well play out like you say, but it's just as likely (more likely, probably) that the winds of change are blowing. Buffalo for example.... Did you consider their unproven injury prone QB with no reliable backup? The loss of their leading tackler from a year ago? An unproven head coach who was .500 at the college level? Everyone has weaknesses/concerns, but those are way more glaring than any of our divisional rivals. Edited August 22, 2014 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 just in case IN + this is the 3rd thread today where I posted my thoughts on the AFCE rankings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Ah yes, projecting the future based on the past. How come you didn't account for our sweep of Miami in 2013? Or the fact that they have no linebackers? Or running back? Or haven't figured out how to effectively use their best/only offensive weapon? Why didn't you account for the utterly atrocious secondary in New York? Or their brewing QB controversy? Or what appears to be the twilight of the Rex Ryan era? Did you consider the woefully suspect defensive line in New England? The fact that they have no running backs who can't fumble? That their best offensive weapon has a broken back? It could very well play out like you say, but it's just as likely (more likely, probably) that the winds of change are blowing. Who said anything about the past? NE is simply a better team than us due to Brady, at this point. Without Brady, they fall back to the pack. NYJ are close to us, but I think they have a more stout defense, otherwise they are pretty equal to us. The Dolphins, I think got better over the offseason, moreso than us, but really, we could switch them and us. We might sweep them, sure, but they also might beat more teams than us. Like I said in another thread, I think we got a bit better on paper, but the schedule is pretty rough for the whole of the AFC East. I think EJ will progress slowly, but I'm not really sure about his ceiling... so as of now, I see a lot of what we saw last year. But, lets say EJ improves and stays healthy, and our OL improves, and our playcalling improves on offense.... and our new defense doesn't give up big passing plays, we'll be in good shape. The problem is, that's a whole lot of ifs. Hence my somewhat down prediction. It has nothing to do with "oh, we'll suck because we sucked for 14 years", it has everything to do with the fact that I see big question marks at many positions, and the odds are that some of those question marks will turn out well, and some of them will turn out badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Raiders had a string of 5 finishing in 76. Vikings a string of 6 finishing in 78. Steelers a string of 6 finishing in 79. Rams a string of 7 finishing in 79. Divisions were actually bigger then: the Easts and Wests had five teams each, the Centrals 4. Edit: Forgive an old man's memory: Until 1976, AFC and NFC East had 5 each; Centrals and Wests had 4 each. After Tampa and Seattle entered the league in 1976, they evenyually settled into the NFC Central and AFC West, respectively. Just going from memory here, but weren't the Cali-based Raiders and Rams in the AFC and NFC Wests, and the Vikings and Steelers in the Centrals? So all of those 70s streaks at least started in 4-team divisions like everyone plays in today. The Raiders', Rams', and Steelers' streaks were fully in 4-team divisions, and the Vikings put up 2 (or 3?) of their 6 years in a 5-team division with a historically awful expansion team. Still very impressive, but the more teams in a division, the harder it is to maintain those streaks. I don't think it's fully a coincidence that we didn't see as many long streaks during the decades when every division was at least 5. You'll still get dominant teams -- the Bills had what, 4 straight and 5 of 6 from '88-'94? -- but it's less likely that none of the other teams in the division jump up to have a good year and break the streak. There's a reason that since the NFL went to the current division alignment, we've seen more division winners with bad records. The fewer # of teams per division, the more likely that all 4 have losing records, or all 4 have winning records, or 1 stays dominant for a long time, etc. From a statistical standpoint, the best alignment in US sports history was MLB prior to divisions being created. One division, everyone plays 162 games, everyone plays everyone else a bunch of times, and whoever has the best record at the end wins the pennant. It's a lot easier to tell who the best team was with that format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts