Bollocks. The other teams sucked because they were run by incompetents much like my pathetic redskins, though not quite as badly. You don't control what these teams have done w/the draft. You don't control the Bills/Jets/Dolphins all failing to select even one league average Quarterback between 1998-2017 (In fairness, my redskins have only drafted one (Kirk Cousins) since Sammy Baugh, so there's that). You don't control Miami, and NYJ housing totally incompetent GM's over and over, w/Buffalo little better, if at all. You guys didn't make them look like crap, they are all crap and have been since Marino, Jim Kelly, and Pat Ryan/Ken O'Brien retired (and I'm not buying the little mini-runs each team put together during the window where they didn't suck for 1-2 seasons). I'm not clueless here. As I mentioned earlier, they'd be extraordinary regardless of what division they were in, much like Tom's childhood Niners were (I grew up in the bay, and went to high school w/his sisters, Maureen the star pitcher, all PAL her senior year when I was a freshmen, Julie, the hot one, soccer and softball, and Nancy, who I ran track with, and no joke, I ran into at Ricky's in Oakland in August of '01 a month before Tom began his run, no joke, my words to her while the Pats were pounding my redskins was, "Even if Tom gets in, I don't think he can get anything done behind that line." Famous last words lol). If you're not familiar, in an odd coincidence, the Niners also got much of the same bad rep because they also played in a division full of losers throughout their run, The Falcons, and Saints would trade off 1-2 good seasons out of every 5 or 6 years, while the Rams would bubble up twice ('83-85, and again from '88-'89) before sinking again, but none ever challenged them. During that time there was a lot of ripping of the soft, finesse Niners, but nobody could argue w/their record setting undefeated on the road streak (forget the #), or the fact that other than 1982 (Cocaine rumors being one of the problems) and the '85-'86 dip, they absolutely dominated from 1981-1991, and were damn good from '92-'96 as well (would've won the super bowl in 1990 for the only ever Threepeat if not for a Roger Craig fumble when they were running out the clock before they could do victory formation). Anyway, feel free to disagree, I just know it's b.s. You get an inherent advantage when you have a divisional championship bye, and a likely playoff bye. Do the Patriots win as many Super Bowls? I don't know, probably not. Otoh, best coach, best QB of the past two decades, a gazillion super bowl appearances and wins, nobody will touch in my lifetime. What more do you want? People pretending your division is good? It's not like you weren't also collecting titles in the NBA, NHL and MLB as well. Don't be so greedy. It's unbecoming.
Disagree all you want (many do in this case), but the statistics tell you you're wrong. Every argument like yours is "no other team has won" or "they stink cuz they don't have a qb". I use links with numbers showing how each of the teams in the afc east are average nfl teams. Much like my MB arguments over the last 5 years (ironically, using no stats much like you in this case), I'm right again.
The NFL record for consecutive winning seasons is held by the Dallas Cowboys, 21 starting in 1965. The US players' having to think Berhalters 'system' naturally causes players to appear to 'lollygag'. McKennie himself stated that 3G wanted him to have the confidence that the ball was going to get to him--in other words, to play more positionally.
Didn't want to derail the thread, but it looks like it's plenty derailed. The AFC East is considered bad because they fail to produce teams that compete with the Patriots. Then, they turn around and fail to produce playoff teams, period. The Pats sure do beat up on most teams, but they perform even better against their own division, despite the fact that their own division is very familiar with them. It's not that they can't sometimes win games against other teams, it's that they can't actually produce Super Bowl-contending football teams. Think about it like this. The Pats winning lots of games every year doesn't prevent an AFC East team from earning a Wildcard spot. Plenty of wins to be had in the 14 other games that aren't against the Patriots. Except the AFC has earned 6 Wildcard spots since 2002, the lowest of any division in football. The AFC North earned 12 spots, and the AFC South and West each earned 8. Over in the NFC, the fewest Wildcard berths is the NFC West, with 7, North and South with 8, and the NFC East with 11. You take out the Pats, and the East has very few playoff appearances and very few wins. You take out the "top" team in every other division, and every other division's "bottom 3" has more playoff wins, playoff appearances, Super Bowls, and Super Bowl appearances. Most divisions play some kind of musical chairs of dominance between teams, which is how the NFL is set up with the draft system, allowing bottom-feeders access to top Draft talent. In some divisions, like the AFC North and NFC West, two teams fight for dominance most of the time. Otherwise, the top team is never able to sustain that much long-term success.
I would never argue the afc east is great, or even good. They are 3 average teams. Based on the pats winning percentages, any division they would/could be in would be the same as the afc east the last 20 years. The afc east sux argument is losers talk for people who aren't willing to admit how ridiculous the last 20 years are. Someone said above, it won't be replicated in our lifetimes, and BB will go down in history as the greatest coach in the history of any sport.
Almost a response. Except for the fact that every other division's bottom 3 has more playoff teams. Every other division's bottom 3 has had superior quarterbacks. Every other division's bottom 3 has gone to more Super Bowls and won, including against the Patriots. BB is great. AFC Least is just that.
But there's so much PP in having to discuss GGG that it's only human to seek to avoid that and go with BB. But you're right. Our manager is GGG, and no playing with the alphabet will improve our fate.
[moved] I dunno, tomásbernal. There are a bunch of posters who believe that, "well, it's not like we're keeping messi off the roster. The alternative players for Baird/Lovitz/Roldan/Trapp are so obviously not better that we don't even have to give them a real look with the team." It's not exactly saying Baird or Lovitz belong anywhere close to this team but the gist is there... Stylistically, Holmes is disruptive and dynamic, albeit a bit un-elegant: I think a good coach could make great use of players like Holmes but it doesn't fit in well with Berhalter's "attractive appearance first" philosophy.
I think it's more that Pirlos don't grow on tress and we don't have one and probably no one else does either.
the BB discussion has the same basic fallacies as hiring GB in and of itself. unearned comparison and optimistic valuation. it's the difference between hiring Mourinho after Porto and hiring Moyes thinking he would be the next SAF, for taking second in FA Cup. the notion that given power a coach could in theory dominate the field assumes the conclusion of a single entry in a vast pool of potentials. i realize picking a winner verges on circular -- hiring a winner to win again -- but the existing metrics of success make that a less speculative hope. i am not loading my proposal up with my hopes for different soccer and higher success -- that everyone else may have. i am making a much smaller step that the guy who won Europe for Porto might be able to hack a national league. done right I might even be asking him to do less than before..... otherwise, in logic and theory some dad coaching 8 year olds in a local league could be some great value coach in waiting, as could anyone at any level, but the odds of that actually being the truth are slim. if you want the odds better, you hire someone with success approximating or stepping up to the success you want at this level.
Before being hired at NE, BB had been defensive coordinator for the dominating Lawrence Taylor era Giants, and heir apparent to Parcells. He then had the last playoff appearance for the Browns v.1 as a head coach. The problems in hiring GB include 2 basic things. 1. We had previously required a league title from club coaches, which he didn't have, and which was removed from the list of demands specifically for this go-round. This opens the process up to subjectivity and hopefulness. 2. Not only did we remove retrospective metrics, we prospectively seem to have not set objective milestones going forward. Win LoN group. Win LoN. Win GC. Qualify, etc. Stewart's response to GB's struggles suggests no finish was expected of the team in a group with Canada and Cuba to stay employed. This suggest objective metrics of performance do not exist or are sufficiently far out as to allow us to walk well onto a plank and perhaps on into the sea before realizing this isn't working. His supporters will respond, it will take time, but for that to be an objectively monitored statement as opposed to mere vague aspiration, you need the teeth of milestones and performance accountability. That you are expected to have the cattle drive to Tulsa by x date, and to Wichita by y date. This would recognize "it takes time" but hold the coach to progress towards the goal on a timeline.
We beat Mexico last year, but I am curious how much of the lack of metrics centers on a defeatist notion that Mexico is simply better than us, and thus demanding first place by some date would be perceived in certain circles as harsh and beyond possibility. Thing being in practice this is like saying, we hired you to improve us "a little." If the system is that great, it should also fix our Mexico issue. Surely he didn't sell the idea that "if you take on my system and change your players we will be permanently #2?" Can't imagine that's what he said. Now, if the system is insufficient for our purposes you are really saying talent matters more in which case we'd be better served to focus on player evaluation and development and less on fake fixes.
[moved from YA] What's ironic is that mexico has a worst time than the US a time vs. Carribean physical teams at away matches. So who's the genius who thinks that trying a more technical style will lead to success?
It's a valid point. Trying to do the finesse thing is not for us, not at this point. It's the same thing I reproached Klinsmann. Play fast, strong, and high-stamina. That deals with the physical teams and the technical teams in the region, outside the top two (and I consider the Ticos the most technical in C-CAF, when they're actually trying).
The error is thinking its an either or. One of the biggest positives that I came away with this year was that the US could build a common style for the future that requires finesse and skill- while simultaneously winning the games they should by using their athleticism, intensity, and stamina. That is the ideal. Win and compete now at an equivalent or better level than expected- while having a consistent and unwavering eye on the future.
Those posters are right--Roldan isn't keeping Messi off the roster, he's MAYBE keeping Holmes off the roster. You don't like it, I don't like it (as of right now), but it's not some major "f#ck you" to Holmes. They are very different players. You and I like what Holmes brings. Others like what Roldan brings. I still can't recall anyone ever saying that Baird or Lovitz should be getting calls. If there's one whacknut saying that, so be it. But it seems pretty universal that folks think they suck and that, at the least, there are far better options even if you only look at MLS. Hollingshead comes to mind (and Lima for that matter). I think Trapp will be on his way off the team if Yueill and Morales continue to play well. Not to mention if Tyler Adams ever returns to fitness. People screamed for Morales--now he appears to be solidifying his place in the 23. Who else do you want getting called up at the 6 that isn't lately?
At the 6? Only canouse comes to mind. As you are probably aware, many posters were screaming for Alfredo and he’s shown to be better than others who were/are on the roster (but again, not Messi). This was a guy who wasn’t even on the 40 man roster despite being a B1 regular. Let’s hope that Berhalter continues to evaluate other positions as well. however, the same thing has been said about Lovitz and ARobinson; that Robinson isn’t Messi so what’s the big deal with Lovitz? finally, it is ridiculous that Holmes can’t get a look. He’s played well since the gold cup and hasn’t been invited back even though we’ve underperformed and should be looking to improve.
True but Mexico always makes the WC (even if we stupidly bail them out since they don't return the favor). Once in the WC the lower end but physical CONCACAF type teams (cough cough Honduras) don't do well because they no longer have incompetent CONCACAF refs who let them foul at will. I don't think the US is as technically good as Mexico (yet maybe never) so we can't rely on qualifying the way they do. We need a CONCACAF qualifying roster and a different roster for the WC if we qualify.
Why can't our best team beat CONCACAF as well as compete at WCs? We can be world-class at attacking via aerial right now and could have an almost elite disruptive rangy midfield. That should work in both scenarios. To me, the wrong way to try to beat lesser CONCACAF teams is via attractive attacking football - games are battles, particularly at away matches with small, crappy fields. Furthermore, we don't have a single player who I would consider to be even close to elite in full possession skills, let alone a full squad. Separately, I do think that our skill level is and will continue to increase and that we will eventually match Mexico. We will naturally see more attractive play at an increasing amount of USMNT games as we continue to send more players to the major leagues. I just think it's folly to force the issue before we have the horses to do so.