Not true.. no (at best) true 8-8 teams that season would have made the playoffs... especially ones who beat opponents with a cumulative sub .400 winning % and had recently lost 6 out of 7.
But then again, we're arguing about who's the bigger loser, so while it's all relative, unless you at least win a conference championship, close only counts in horseshoes
In 2008 you had no Brady and an easier sched.
our 9 wins in 2009 came against teams w/ a 73-71 record, 51% and 3 playoff bound teams
your 2008 11 wins came against teams w/ a 63-97 record, 39% and 1 playoff bound team that was 8-8
factor in no Brady and the Favre choke and your road was MUCH easier.
So is Mark Sanchez still greater than Chad Henne......less than...........equal to????????
Hey, shady baby, I'm hot like the prodigal son
Pick a petal eenie meenie miney moe
And, flower, you're the chosen one
Well, your left hand's free
And your right's in a grip
With another left hand
Watch his right hand slip
Towards his gun, oh, no
We actually won a division with 3 teams going 9 wins or better and NE actually winning 1 more game without Brady than they did the following year with Brady. We also orchestrated the greatest turnaround in the history of the NFL.
we beat Houston on the road in the opener, if Hou wins that game they would have made the playoffs. We also beat New England.
we had 3 teams w/ 9 wins b/c the sched was a creampuff. Our 2009 team was a million times better than 2008 but had the same record. How come you discount the Jets against Indy and Cincy but don't do the same for NE in week 17? they rested players, they didn't need the game or they would have had 11 wins against a tougher sched than 2008.
15-18 since. .454 winning % since.we have only had one losing record since then too.