Kirwan's Analysis

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to sporter81's comment:

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     



    That is a very true statement. However divisional games often have a way of being very tough wins no matter how poor or good a team is. Teams are just too familiar with each other.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     

     



    That is a very true statement. However divisional games often have a way of being very tough wins no matter how poor or good a team is. Teams are just too familiar with each other.

     



    you: reasonable

    rusty: loony bird

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with Brady throwing crappy balls to the sidelines whether it be this year or last. LMAO

    You enjoying his crappy throws, are you?  How many more underthrown deep balls do you need to see?

    Answer FBI Low IQ's question, Gladys.




    It's on targets.  For comparison purposes,

    WW 68%  13, +20  15 drops including ps

    Gronk 70%  13, + 20 in half a year 5 drops

    Hern 61%   only 5, +20  bad year for hern 11 drops including ps

    Woodhead, 73% with 7 catches over 20.

    lloyd 55%  10, +20   (only 50% in the post season) and zero catches over 20 out of 4 attempts 

    LLOYD brought down TB's completion % from a 66% ly to a 63.7 this year not uncatachable passes as crusty of course blames TB for.  All QB's throw uncatchable passes.

    Rusty wants to get rid of the two most productive recievers, WW & Woody, to make Tom better.  LOL

    So, Rusty...welching on bets again, are ya?  Go away now,  little man.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     

     



    Or maybe its the idea that NE is that much better run it only appears the division is "weak".

     

    The NFC West was perennially weak year after year, except for this past season.

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 

    Gints has it right on both counts.  I'll add one more.  The defense the pats had from 01-07 was spectacular.  Just a real fortunate influx of personnel at the same time. 

    As for Belichick's cap management, I kind of disagree.  People would give him credit for the 2nd Brady contract (the hometown discount), but really that happened before Brady broke out.  It wasn't really a discount.  It was reflective of his play as a game manager through those early years.  Even if I couldn't convince you of this, the alternative (that Belichick did get the discount) didn't work either. 

    The discount should have resulted in superbowl victories.  It didn't.  Now Brady is one of the highest paid players in the league taking up substantial cap space as he should.  The pats have been just as successful.  Thus the contract is irrelevant.  The pats are essentially the colts with Manning.  Winning their division, going to the playoffs, losing. 

    All Belichick's cap management has done is line the pockets of his owner.  Nothing else.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     

     



    Or maybe its the idea that NE is that much better run it only appears the division is "weak".

     

    The NFC West was perennially weak year after year, except for this past season.

     

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 

     

    Gints has it right on both counts.  I'll add one more.  The defense the pats had from 01-07 was spectacular.  Just a real fortunate influx of personnel at the same time. 

    As for Belichick's cap management, I kind of disagree.  People would give him credit for the 2nd Brady contract (the hometown discount), but really that happened before Brady broke out.  It wasn't really a discount.  It was reflective of his play as a game manager through those early years.  Even if I couldn't convince you of this, the alternative (that Belichick did get the discount) didn't work either. 

    The discount should have resulted in superbowl victories.  It didn't.  Now Brady is one of the highest paid players in the league taking up substantial cap space as he should.  The pats have been just as successful.  Thus the contract is irrelevant.  The pats are essentially the colts with Manning.  Winning their division, going to the playoffs, losing. 

    All Belichick's cap management has done is line the pockets of his owner.  Nothing else.  



    UD I have said this to you before and I will say it again. You should stick to speaking about he Colts. WHen you do it sounds reasonable although I really do not follow them so I wouldn't know.

    Not all but most of the time that you try and speak about the Pats I think you are off base.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    Yeah, it has nothing to do with Brady throwing crappy balls to the sidelines whether it be this year or last. LMAO

    You enjoying his crappy throws, are you?  How many more underthrown deep balls do you need to see?

    Answer FBI Low IQ's question, Gladys.

     




    It's on targets.  For comparison purposes,

     

    WW 68%  13, +20  15 drops including ps

    Gronk 70%  13, + 20 in half a year 5 drops

    Hern 61%   only 5, +20  bad year for hern 11 drops including ps

    Woodhead, 73% with 7 catches over 20.

    lloyd 55%  10, +20   (only 50% in the post season) and zero catches over 20 out of 4 attempts 

    LLOYD brought down TB's completion % from a 66% ly to a 63.7 this year not uncatachable passes as crusty of course blames TB for.  All QB's throw uncatchable passes.

    Rusty wants to get rid of the two most productive recievers, WW & Woody, to make Tom better.  LOL

    So, Rusty...welching on bets again, are ya?  Go away now,  little man.



    I wasn't asking about the catchable or targets as any sort of indication of TB's play what so ever. I guess you guys are going back and forth over who's to blame more receiver or QB? Not into all that. A catch takes both sides which is why I think there was equal blame on the welker superbowl drop. (Could have had it, tough catch, but also crap throw (unnecessary as well).

    ...but my only point was that for me personally I think the target stat is only good for seeing who a QB's first read typically is or his binkie. I don't really put much other value in the targets stat.

    I would like to see those numbers you used on catchable balls to see how they came out. PFF has them but I don't have an acocunt with them.

    Using targets is so misleading because maybe the QB and WR were not on the same page on a given play(QB throws left at the break and WR breaks right, ball is 5 yards away from WR and incomplete). Maybe the QB's throw was right on the money but the defender just made a great play on the ball and made a pass defense. Maybe it's a throw on a lower percentage route run(the type of throw, deep ball over thrown) etc, etc. Those are targets but they are not getting caught. They are not catchable. They should not count against a receivers catch percentage.

    Without seeing the actual numbers using catchable balls I would venture an eyeball test that Lloyd has pretty darn good hands.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     

     



    Or maybe its the idea that NE is that much better run it only appears the division is "weak".

     

    The NFC West was perennially weak year after year, except for this past season.

     

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 

     

    Gints has it right on both counts.  I'll add one more.  The defense the pats had from 01-07 was spectacular.  Just a real fortunate influx of personnel at the same time. 

    As for Belichick's cap management, I kind of disagree.  People would give him credit for the 2nd Brady contract (the hometown discount), but really that happened before Brady broke out.  It wasn't really a discount.  It was reflective of his play as a game manager through those early years.  Even if I couldn't convince you of this, the alternative (that Belichick did get the discount) didn't work either. 

    The discount should have resulted in superbowl victories.  It didn't.  Now Brady is one of the highest paid players in the league taking up substantial cap space as he should.  The pats have been just as successful.  Thus the contract is irrelevant.  The pats are essentially the colts with Manning.  Winning their division, going to the playoffs, losing. 

    All Belichick's cap management has done is line the pockets of his owner.  Nothing else.  

     



    UD I have said this to you before and I will say it again. You should stick to speaking about he Colts. WHen you do it sounds reasonable although I really do not follow them so I wouldn't know.

     

    Not all but most of the time that you try and speak about the Pats I think you are off base.


    IQ - that's reasonable.  We all have opinions and I would never consider myself to be so smart that I was never wrong like a few people here. 

    My comments above are just the way I see things.  If the pats cap management is such that their payroll is lower than most while still competitive, doesn't it beg the question: why not spend a little more to get the team over the top? 

    The colts managed to stay competitive with Manning and his contract and at or very near the cap limit.  If the pats can do the same while still having cap money in the bank, then why not use it in hopes of causing a different result? 

    By not using it, all it does is limit the owner's expense.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?



    Probably. I think that's why, in some part, you see a team like the Giants(and some others) win one then fall off and then get back again a few years later.

    You have to assume it was why they did the Talib deal as well. Thinking they were close and needed one more piece.

    The trade off in the philosophy is if it does not pay off. You go for broke still do not get the bounces and that lil bit of luck in the close tight game and then are also heading into the off season knowing you have to take a few steps back to try and move forward again.

    I think it comes down to what an organization prefers doing.

    You've simply heard Kraft and BB say before that they are not willing to sacrifice the future years of the teams competitiveness for an all in run. Not in those exact words but something like that.

    It is definitly much more difficult and challenging to do it how the Patriots are opting to try. In my opinion.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

     

    In response to sporter81's comment:

     

    Belichick's genius of cap management is often overlooked because he's such a great coach. Having a consistent winning organization is very difficult , it takes constant tweaking , planning, and a little bit of luck. Belichick has always had the Patriots in position to win, just like he does on the field. 

     




    you forgot to add tom brady and a perrenially weak division to the mix

     

     



    Or maybe its the idea that NE is that much better run it only appears the division is "weak".

     

    The NFC West was perennially weak year after year, except for this past season.

     

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 

     

    Gints has it right on both counts.  I'll add one more.  The defense the pats had from 01-07 was spectacular.  Just a real fortunate influx of personnel at the same time. 

    As for Belichick's cap management, I kind of disagree.  People would give him credit for the 2nd Brady contract (the hometown discount), but really that happened before Brady broke out.  It wasn't really a discount.  It was reflective of his play as a game manager through those early years.  Even if I couldn't convince you of this, the alternative (that Belichick did get the discount) didn't work either. 

    The discount should have resulted in superbowl victories.  It didn't.  Now Brady is one of the highest paid players in the league taking up substantial cap space as he should.  The pats have been just as successful.  Thus the contract is irrelevant.  The pats are essentially the colts with Manning.  Winning their division, going to the playoffs, losing. 

    All Belichick's cap management has done is line the pockets of his owner.  Nothing else.  

     



    WHo called the biggest contract of 2011 a "discount"?  I am pretty sure NO ONE did, which means you're making things up again as a troll technique. Both Brady and Brees's contracts are monsters. Flaccos will be too, as will Rodgers's.

     NO ONE.  THE 2011 CONTRACT WAS HIS THIRD CONTRACT.  WAKE UP. 

    Brady had to be the union guy and demand as much as pissible into the lockout. That's why it took so long.

    Duh.

    No one ever called it a discount. In fact, it's part of my issue with Brady's poor play lately. Since he got that deal to tie one hand of BB's behind his back as the cap guy, Brady's play in the postseason has been WORSE than it was before either in his rookie or second deal.

     YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD A POINT IF YOU HADN'T SCREWED UP THE PREMISE. 




     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Has anyone considered that if BB had gone into "salary cap hell", let's say in an extremely close year like 2011, that the extra jolt of talent might have brought us the Lombardi?

    Is it such a crazy strategy to spike the team significantly for a year and pay a price the next if that boost significantly improves your prospects to win it all?

     




    So, the fact he brilliantly waited out the lockout to avoid cap hell like some teams have now, by signing Carter and then Waters and Anderson in August, those brilliant moves weren't good enough?

     

    Did you ever think you'll run out of excuses for Brady's high throw to Welker, or his god awful INT, or be the only QB in postseason history to start a playoff game with Safety because his decision was so reckless?

    What does BB being more brilliant off a lockout with unknown cap paramters at the time have to do with Brady underperforming in the SB?

     




    I don't need excuses junior. We have 3 probable Lombardis missed because of defensive collapses at the endgame. Your ranting can't ever change that fact.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    It is definitly much more difficult and challenging to do it how the Patriots are opting to try. In my opinion.



    If you're missing in the draft as much as we do, I agree.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     

     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    no, not really.  Your post is generally for 9 years from 02-10.  The pats have exactly 1 more Reg season win over 144 games (.7% better).  I don't think anyone would call that statistically significant yet more AFC South teams went to the playoffs than afc east teams. 

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Parsing are we my friend?  in the 9 seasons you mention (MINUS NO TEAMS) - the afc south sent 15 teams to the playoffs while the afc east sent 13.  The fact that the colts made the playoffs every year during that period while the pats missed 2 the playoffs two of those years actually hurts your argument. 

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    The 9 years you mention is 02 thru 10.  Houston did not make the playoffs until 11.  Wrong again. 

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    You said 9 years since realignment.  That's 02 thru 10.  Wrong again.  Heck lets include 2011.  Houston went and the pats went.  That's 16 AFCS to 14 AFCE.  You're still wrong.  Shall we include 2012 too (Heck Manning's gone yet the AFCS still sent 2 teams to one by the AFCE).  That's 18 AFCS to 15 AFCE. 

    Weak division. 

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

    No need to spin or lie.  I'll use your criteria against you to make you look silly. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to 42AND46's comment:

          Which brings us to the G-men. True, they have plenty of holes to fill...with their greatest needs being on their defensive and offensive lines. That's where they should seek help in the draft. Though WR Victor Cruz is a very good slot receiver and a fan favorite...he's not worth upsetting the teams' salary structure to pay him the kind of money that he's seeking. Nor is Hakeem Nicks worthy of breaking the bank on. He's too injury prone. Eli Manning can and will make due with lesser receivers, so long as he's adequately protected.      

    done next year? of course not!! thats queenie talking his bs again

    hell at 8-5 they were primed then it fell off so time to regroup...i know they are in a real division in a superior conference but i fully expect a nice bounce back, especially this coming season where their schedule downgrades from ridiculous to normal  :  )



         The Giants need to decide on how they handle WRs Nicks, and Cruz. What do you think that they should do? Both guys want huge money. At least one will not get it. Might they not be better off going with Randle, in place of Nicks...and bringing in a far less expensive slot receiver than Cruz? Next season, if Victor's mind is on his contract and not fully into his play, the results could be disasterous. Look what happened with DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace, when they appeared to be more concerned about protecting themselves from injury, than for going all out on the field. The Giants should scrap these glamour boys...and go full bore towards rebuilding their OL and DL.

           

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     

     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    no, not really.  Your post is generally for 9 years from 02-10.  The pats have exactly 1 more Reg season win over 144 games (.7% better).  I don't think anyone would call that statistically significant yet more AFC South teams went to the playoffs than afc east teams. 

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Parsing are we my friend?  in the 9 seasons you mention (MINUS NO TEAMS) - the afc south sent 15 teams to the playoffs while the afc east sent 13.  The fact that the colts made the playoffs every year during that period while the pats missed 2 the playoffs two of those years actually hurts your argument. 

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    The 9 years you mention is 02 thru 10.  Houston did not make the playoffs until 11.  Wrong again. 

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    You said 9 years since realignment.  That's 02 thru 10.  Wrong again.  Heck lets include 2011.  Houston went and the pats went.  That's 16 AFCS to 14 AFCE.  You're still wrong.  Shall we include 2012 too (Heck Manning's gone yet the AFCS still sent 2 teams to one by the AFCE).  That's 18 AFCS to 15 AFCE. 

    Weak division. 

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

    No need to spin or lie.  I'll use your criteria against you to make you look silly. 

     

     


    I call out your spin, showing that the last two years are the basis for your grandiose statement that the AFCE is weak and you call that parsing troll. This is why you are a disingenuous joke here. You are much more the parse artist in this than I since your conclusion regarding the division over a decade or so rests entirely on the Texans making the playoffs twice in the last two seasons.

    Troll owned again.


    Typical delusional thinking from the troll. If you're going to claim the division the Pats played in is weak as a contributing factor to the Pats' success, then you have to compare the records of the OTHER teams in the division not including the Pats. Yet you try to inject the playoff appearances of the Colts/Pats into the equation.

    Troll owned again.

    Your entire premise is a joke anyway, as if counting playoff teams is the measure of the strength of a division. The overall record of the division is the measure troll, not who made the playoffs.

    Troll owned again.

     

    But this is not nearly enough troll smashing. Let's do more.

     

    We'll take 2002 through 20012 and look at the division records and trash your pathetic and cherry picked standard of counting playoff teams. Lets look at the W/L of the two divisions.

    From 2002 through 2012......

    In those 11 seasons the AFCE won more game than the AFCS SIX times compared to the AFCS THREE times (two ties).

    Troll owned again.

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    Troll owned again.

     

    I will always own you troll, because you are a liar and are incapable of objectivity because of your sick "sex assaulter" hero worship.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     



    Not really.  When you look at teams in th AFC E during the Brady years you will find that aside from the AFC W, it sent fewer teams to the playoffs than the other divsions.  It was weak. 


     

     



    Brilliant logic troll. And the ability of the other teams in the division was not affected by having to play the winningest team of the past decade twice a season, right?

    no, not really.  Your post is generally for 9 years from 02-10.  The pats have exactly 1 more Reg season win over 144 games (.7% better).  I don't think anyone would call that statistically significant yet more AFC South teams went to the playoffs than afc east teams. 

    Since 2002 (realignment), over 9 seasons, BOTH the AFCE minus the Pats and the AFCS minus the Colts sent 6 teams to the playoffs.

    Parsing are we my friend?  in the 9 seasons you mention (MINUS NO TEAMS) - the afc south sent 15 teams to the playoffs while the afc east sent 13.  The fact that the colts made the playoffs every year during that period while the pats missed 2 the playoffs two of those years actually hurts your argument. 

    Therefore, your assessment that the AFCE "was weak" is solely based on the Texans making the playoffs the last two years and nobody in the AFCE doing so.

    The 9 years you mention is 02 thru 10.  Houston did not make the playoffs until 11.  Wrong again. 

    And even at that the comparison is mitigated by the Colts being the worst team in 2011 and not making the playoffs thus allowing another to win that division while the Pats were winning theirs.

    You said 9 years since realignment.  That's 02 thru 10.  Wrong again.  Heck lets include 2011.  Houston went and the pats went.  That's 16 AFCS to 14 AFCE.  You're still wrong.  Shall we include 2012 too (Heck Manning's gone yet the AFCS still sent 2 teams to one by the AFCE).  That's 18 AFCS to 15 AFCE. 

    Weak division. 

    Troll exposed again as a spinner and liar.

    No need to spin or lie.  I'll use your criteria against you to make you look silly. 

     

     

     

     


    I call out your spin, showing that the last two years are the basis for your grandiose statement that the AFCE is weak and you call that parsing troll. This is why you are a disingenuous joke here. You are much more the parse artist in this than I since your conclusion regarding the division over a decade or so rests entirely on the Texans making the playoffs twice in the last two seasons.

    Wrong twice in the first sentence alone.  One - I didn't mention the last 2 years.  You did.  Further, you defined your years and then parsed my criteria by removing both the colts and pats from the equation.  They are each a part of their division so they cannot be removed from the statement.  The AFC S sent 2 more teams than your AFC E from 2002-2010 or 2002-2011 and 3 more 2002-2012.  Slice it anyway you like Babe, as long as you don't slice out teams in the division, the AFC S sent more teams to the playoffs than your AFC E.  And from 02-10 (your criteria) the Pats had only one more Reg season win than the colts.  Not a statistical significance.  

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  So easy. 


    Typical delusional thinking from the troll. If you're going to claim the division the Pats played in is weak as a contributing factor to the Pats' success, then you have to compare the records of the OTHER teams in the division not including the Pats. Yet you try to inject the playoff appearances of the Colts/Pats into the equation.

    The parsing king.  I never said the pats division was weak as a contributing factor to the pats success.  I said the pats division was weak compared to the other divisions.  Stop spinning Babe - You're only tying yourself up in knots. 

    Troll owned again.  Yes you were.  Too easy. 

    Your entire premise is a joke anyway, as if counting playoff teams is the measure of the strength of a division. The overall record of the division is the measure troll, not who made the playoffs.

    LOL, of course its a joke if you can't effectively dispute it, which you can't.  But I'll bite on your own measure - total division record - 02-10 AFCS has more total wins than AFCE.  LOL!!!   Now what Babe?  Time to parse or spin some more?  LOL!!

    Troll owned again.  Again you were. 

     

    But this is not nearly enough troll smashing. Let's do more.

     

    We'll take 2002 through 20012 and look at the division records and trash your pathetic and cherry picked standard of counting playoff teams. Lets look at the W/L of the two divisions.

    From 2002 through 2012......

    Oh heck, I just hadn't read down far enough.  I was too busy owning you above when in fact you were doing exactly what I said you would do - just later in the same post.  So now you are spinning a different time frame because your initial timeframe failed you miserably. 

    In those 11 seasons the AFCE won more game than the AFCS SIX times compared to the AFCS THREE times (two ties).

    So now you are spinning, both a different period of time (because your initial time period failed you) and counting years not total record (because that failed you also).  Babe, its a shame that you so publicly and obviously demonstrate your how pathetic you are.    

    Troll owned again.

    Over those 11 seasons the AFCE lost 335 games, the AFCS 335 games.

    Troll owned again.

     

    I will always own you troll, because you are a liar and are incapable of objectivity because of your sick "sex assaulter" hero worship.  Babe the only thing you own is a pathetic mind that will spin and parse even after public humiliation just to hopefully save a little face.  I feel sorry for you.   




     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Kirwan's Analysis

         Hey Babe...why don't you ask The Dog(ggggg) why he's chosen a nine year period to examine, from 2002-11, rather than a complete decade, from 2001-11? Could it be that doing so would compromise his agenda, and undermine his argument?

         I know that his excuse will be that realignment took place in 2002. But, if you're discussing "the Brady Years", to be accurate, isn't it a must to include the 2001 season? That year, the Pats, Dolphins and Jets all made the play-offs. But, no team currently in the AFC South did:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NFL_season.

         Isn't it interesting that weak teams like the (6-10) Colts, the (6-10) Jags, the (7-9) Titans, and the first year expansion team, the Houston Texans, were all placed in one division? Could it be that the NFL wanted to create a division in which their pin-up boy Peyton could flourish, and dominate?

         Talk about cherry picking facts and parsing words...no poster uses these tactics more than UD6, a/k/a The Dog(ggggg), a/k/a Pinocchio. 

         LOL!!!!   

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share