Talk:Bills–Patriots rivalry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

To anyone who thinks this is a rivalry. Remember one thing: there is no rivalry between the hammer and the nail.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.142.187.105 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bills–Patriots rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game Results error[edit]

There is an error somewhere in the Game Results section. I added up all the wins and losses correctly according to this page, making it 70–44–1 NE, but sources say it's 71–43–1 NE. So obviously, a win was given to Buffalo on here when it should've been for New England. Jewel15 (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through every game here and I couldn't find any errors, so I am not sure what I am missing. Probably my eyes playing tricks on me. Here was my comparison [1]. - GalatzTalk 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, 9/26/10 you attributed to the wrong team. - GalatzTalk 16:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the game from 10/08/66 was won by Boston, not Buffalo. Before, it showed Buffalo as the winner on here. That was the error. All game results are correct now. Jewel15 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No way 9/26/10 is correct - GalatzTalk 16:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality[edit]

@Omnibus: - Most of the content removed from the lead is random trivia that slants the article towards the Bills. This article is supposed to be about the overall rivalry between the teams, not individual players. Instead, there are random statistics, such as Jim Kelly and O. J. Simpson's records against the Patriots (wins aren't even counted with running backs) and the series record without Tom Brady. The fact that the rivalry was more competitive before the 2000s and the Bills currently hold an edge since Brady's departure were both acknowledged in the clean-up of the lead. Those are just components of the rivalry; the overall series record is more important.

There is also unencyclopedic language - calling Brady's career "legendary" and undue weight towards recent events. The only individual games highlighted in the lead are two recent Bills victories, further slanting the article. A case can be made for the Bill's playoff victory having historic significance, but there was nothing historic about the 2020 regular season victory. The inclusion of this content runs the risk of having more random trivia added to the lead, whether it be other regular season blowouts or comebacks, other players' records against the teams, and series records without the presence of other players.

The mention of the Hall of Famers was removed because it's not directly correlated to the main subject of the article, the competition between the Bills and Patriots. A more suitable inclusion for the lead (which is its own subsection) is the players who were on both teams, resulting in them competing for both and adding a personal element to the rivalry. Bluerules (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the most notable things about this rivalry, I think:
*The rivalry was 32-3 for the Pats with Brady, and has been historically evenly matched (45-44-1). Both those records (and the overall combinatory number) are probably the most important aspect to understand about the overall rivalry.
*The rivalry has produced the worst home loss for the Pats against any rival and in fact any team, in this entire century, so that game is notable enough for the lede as it is also historic especially in the context of a divisional rivalry game.
*The rivalry has produced the only perfect offensive game in the entire history of the NFL and it happened to come in one of only two playoff games between the teams.
*I do think the only previous playoff game should be mentioned in the lede too. I know nothing of it, but I know the Pats won. One of us could look it up and include it. Playoff games mean more by nature because those are (generally) the only games that actually end seasons for the other rival.
*If there have been hugely significant season-altering games outside the playoffs between these teams, I'd think those should be included. I don't know them off the top of my head.
Some responses to your arguments:
*I agree that Kelly and Simpson probably don't need to be in the lede. Hall of Famers don't have to be in the lede, and if there were shared players that were All-Pro type players for one or the other or both, they should be there.
*I don't agree there's anything unencyclopedic about calling Brady's career legendary. I doubt that if we looked through decades of print encyclopedias they hesitated to call greatest-of-all-time sports figures legendary. I also note you thought the article was biased toward the Bills, but you don't like this adjective because it is biased toward a Patriots player. At any rate, Brady is indeed a legend in every sense of the word and probably the most successful football player of fall time. Both overall and certainly in this rivalry.
*There's no other career or career record comparable to Brady's, and it's downright silly to think that any other players' record in the series could merit mention here, whether lede or body. Even if a position player had been there all 20 years that Brady was (there wasn't) it's easily showable that Brady was the difference-maker and not a hypothetical 20-year offensive lineman. Belichick, as well, certainly does not share Brady's record and can lay no claim to it as his own record without Brady has been far worse (in fact I believe Belichick has a losing record sans Brady in the series).
Omnibus (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rivalry has not been historically evenly matched. That's one part of the rivalry. We discuss the full history through the prose (competitive before the 2000s, dominated by the Patriots for two decades, Bills have a resurgence) and provide the overall record. Note that the infobox only acknowledges the records in full. Throwing in more records other than the overall series is random trivia that jumbles the lead. Linking the overall record to Brady discredits the Patriots' wins (this is still a team game) and by putting the record without him after the overall record, the record without Brady is given more priority. It's the last thing the reader sees.
If the game was the worst loss that the Patriots experienced, that would be historically notable. If the game was the Patriots' worst loss of the rivalry, that could also be notable for the lead. But too many arbitrary details are being added to try making it notable. It wasn't the worst loss of the series and it wasn't the worst loss that the Patriots experienced (neither of which are mentioned in the lead). The Patriots' 56–10 win against the Bills even happened in Buffalo, yet that's less notable for the lead? The notes section doesn't acknowledge these details about the game because they're arbitrary. This is simply undue weight towards a recent game.
On the other hand, the wild card game is notable because it has historical significance. It's not comparable to other games, unlike the second 2020 game. At the end of the day, the second 2020 game is not the most lopsided for either team, while the wild card game is the only in any NFL game with "perfect offense". That's a big difference. However, I think it could be better-written - the current description is too wordy.
I'm not inherently opposed to mentioning the other playoff game and other games, if they fit. But in my opinion, the wild card game is probably the only one worth acknowledging in the lead because it has historical significance to the entire NFL.
"Legendary" is unencyclopedic because it's a subjective opinion, not a verifiable fact. It's a verifiable fact that Brady is considered the greatest quarterback of all time. To say he is considered legendary is a verifiable fact. But to outright call him "legendary" is sensationalist and opinionated. Let the fact that Brady had a dominating record against the Bills speak for itself. And I never said I took issue with the word for being "biased" towards a Patriots player. I take issue with adding an opinion to the article.
Of course there will never be another Tom Brady, but look at how Jim Kelly and O. J. Simpson their rivalry records and statistics inserted into the lead. Tying the overall series record to Brady and adding the series record without him (in the same sentence, no less) opens up the door for more player records (and their impact on the series) to be added. It is not easily showable that Brady was the difference-maker. In his first two games against the Bills (per NFL.com), his passer rating was 78.9 and 63.6. In 2008, the Patriots swept the Bills with Matt Cassel. Again, it's a team game. Brady should be acknowledged because of his significance to the NFL and football. But he's still only one component of the rivalry. Bluerules (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's decidedly *not* random trivia, as there are reliable sources that are cited about Brady's unique record against the Bills that even he did not have against other rivals. The rivalry is indeed evenly matched without Brady on the field, and we have a duty to provide that record after providing the demonstrably notable record of Brady (who accounts for 42% of the Pats' all-time wins against the Bills).
The worst loss of the century for the Patriots does make it a notable game. There may be other notable games, but instead of the "worst loss of the series" they'd probably have to be the "worst loss by the team, period" in a long time frame such as the current century. However, I'm willing to remove it from the lede and have done so. It's just in the bottom of the body under the chronology of the rivalry for now, and I'll (maybe) start a "notable games" of the rivalry in a separate section at some point.
I can easily find reliable sources that verify Brady's career was and is legendary. I'll do that.
It doesn't open that door (and I've removed Kelly and Simpson based on this fact) because Brady's record is notable as established as such in reliable sources. There were no sources cited that showed Kelly or Simpson had notable records against the Patriots.
Overall, I'm not at all open to removing the notable 32-3 with Brady and evenly-matched without records, and probably not removing the worst loss for the Patriots franchise in the 21st, but I'm definitely open to adding other "worst loss in multiple decades" games if there were any others in the rivalry.
As you know, I've addressed many of your other complaints/suggestions already in last night's edits, but this last one (downplaying the significance of Brady and his record versus the evenness of the rivalry without him) I don't think has a ton of merit. Omnibus (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is random trivia because this article is supposed to be about the overall rivalry, not other assorted records. Brady's record isn't that unique given that he's dominated nearly every opposing team during his career - he has similar record against the Jets. And again, this is not a player vs. team article, this is a team vs. team article. The fact that the Patriots beat the Bills more than any other team in two decades is notable, but that's not just Brady, especially when two of those wins had Matt Cassel as quarterback. We have a duty to provide a neutral point of view. Instead, the lead discredits the Patriots' team wins against the Bills and gives more priority to a record that doesn't reflect the series as a whole. We establish that the series was competitive before the 2000s, was dominated by the Patriots during their dynasty, and the Bills have been the better team in the prose. Throwing in other records to slant the overall record is a discredit to readers.
If a game requires assorted trivia to become notable, it's not notable. A game becomes notable through exclusive elements (e.g. the most lopsided game of the entire series), not various, assorted components. The wild card game has this historic element, but the 2020 regular season game does not
There are sources that consider Brady's career to be legendary. Outright calling his career "legendary" is still an opinion. Note that Brady's article says he's "regarded as the greatest quarterback of all time", not that he's outright "the greatest quarterback of all time".
The fact that Kelly and Simpson were added in the first place demonstrates that this door has been opened. If Josh Allen continues his dominance, there's going to be a push to add his record to the lead, whether or not it should be there. We should not lose focus of this being a team-based rivalry, not a player vs. team rivalry.
I appreciate the compromises, but the neutrality is still an issue. When the lead ends with "the Patriots lead the series 77–47–1, but the series is a much more competitive 45–44–1 in favor of the Patriots in games without Brady on the field", that downplays the overall record. That's not how rivalry articles work. If this rivalry was mainly based on the Patriots with Brady vs. the Bills (like how the Cavaliers–Warriors rivalry is based on their four consecutive championship appearances, not all of their meetings together), then placing a higher priority on Brady's records and the records without Brady would more accurately reflect the entire rivalry. But these are two division rivals who competed frequently before Brady and compete fiercely after Brady.
I also don't understand the chronology of the lead - shouldn't the fact that the Bills and Patriots first competed in the 1960s be at the beginning, not the end? Instead, we start with the 2000s and then jump back to 1960. And I don't understand why other information I added (the Bills and Patriots first competing as charter members of the AFL, the Patriots being considered the Bills' most hated rival) was deleted. That speaks to the entire rivalry. Bluerules (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes regarding all the above, you actually did convince me on most of those points. The Brady record in the rivalry is extremely notable (and literally all I knew about the rivalry coming in as neither a Bills nor Patriots fan) but the record without him is not notable. I made it chronological as well, though the two playoff games are still together. I didn't re-add the "most hated rival" bit due to unreliable sources. One was just one person's opinion and the other was an unreliable polling website with no clarity as to whom exactly was even polled. Omnibus (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only further suggestion for now is to maybe use the Patriots' overall record against the Bills from 2001 to 2019 and note that Brady played in all but two of those games (due to missing almost all of 2008). Other than that, I think the lead has definitely been improved and I'm glad we worked towards a compromise. I'll let you know if I have any other suggestions. Bluerules (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think it's definitely a much better lede now too. That last edit would be problematic because Brady also missed games during Deflategate and New England immediately got shut out 0–16 in this 2016 rivalry game without him. Then he came back and "they" magically dominated the Bills again. The Patriots' grip over the series just wasn't the same without him, which would have to be mentioned all over again (but I agree with the original point that that's too much detail for a lede and just the Brady dominance should remain without mentioning how New England's performance immediately went downhill without him, in 2016, and again in 2020).
The rivalry was actually a very even-handded 3–2 in favor of the Patriots (1–1 in 2000, 2–0 in 2008, 0–1 in 2016) with Brady on the bench during those two decades, versus 32–3 with him playing. Omnibus (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Patriots being shut out in 2016 is less attributable to Brady's absence and more to both of the backup quarterbacks being hurt. The Bills scored more points when Brady played them, but the Patriots offense couldn't keep up in the first game without a healthy available quarterback. It was more expected that the Patriots lose that game, regardless of who they were playing, when they were down to a third-string rookie with an injured thumb - the Bills benefitted from the timing of it.
Since the focus of this article is about the entire rivalry between both, I think it's a good approach to have the records from all the eras in the lead: the 42–39–1 record favoring New England before the Brady–Belichick era, the Patriots' 34–4 record over Buffalo from 2001 to 2019, and the Bills' 4–1 advantage since 2020. That way, we don't leave any games out and the final 77–47–1 record will add up. Bluerules (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 32–3 record of Brady is more significant and much more has been written in reliable sources about that 32–3 in this rivalry than the 35–5 afterthought, but we can just add the 3–2 record without Brady in parens, as I've now done. It still adds up properly that way. The decade began with 2000, not 2001, so that's the difference in record there. I had accidentally made the lede record "through 2000" instead of the total of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Fixed that too. Omnibus (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 32–3 record with Brady is more significant in a Brady-centric article. As this article focuses on both teams as a whole, the more significant record is the 35–5 overview from 2000 to 2019. At the very least, the 35–5 should be acknowledged when we acknowledge other totals in the lead. We don't want to throw too many records into the lead or it could become convoluted. Bluerules (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's good as it is. Brady is extremely significant to the rivalry, and many articles from reliable sources have been about Brady's role in this rivalry specifically. It's not hard for people to add his 32–3 (famous number in many references) and the 3–2 record when he didn't play in five games. As is currently. Omnibus (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree because this article is about the Patriots as a whole, not just Brady. Brady should be mentioned, but it was still the Patriots as an entire team, not just Brady, who went 32–3 against the Bills. At the very least, the focus should still be on the Patriots when we reference records. We don't say Bill Russell went 7–0 against the Lakers in the NBA Finals, we say the Celtics went 7–0 with Russell. Bluerules (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first I disagreed with this, thinking you were looking to de-emphasize the role of Tom Brady in the record but I now see it is more a semantic argument, and with merit. So I changed out "Tom Brady, who compiled a record of 32–3 for the Patriots..." to "Tom Brady, whose Patriots compiled a record of 32–3...". As for Russell, that era of the Boston Celtics is called "The Bill Russell Era" in their article and it says "Russell retired after the 1969 season, effectively ending a Celtics dynasty." Brady's significance is the same here. The Celtics-Lakers rivalry article is a bit different than this, because they don't play rivalry games every year and it was no longer a rivalry in the years after Russell until Larry Bird came around. The Celtics also didn't start losing to the Lakers without Russell like the Patriots are now losing to the Bills, because they simply no longer played the Lakers when they were no longer a championship level team without Russell. Omnibus (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Celtics–Lakers rivalry article does identify players in the lead, but does not primarily attribute victories to those players. The context is different as a championship-based rivalry instead of a division rivalry, but the focus is still on the teams as a whole instead of individual players defeating the rival team. In fact, star players have a bigger role in that context because they're a central reason why the two teams had so many championship battles together. This rivalry, of course, is based on two teams who play each other regardless of success and star players. But that's not to say Brady should be de-emphasized because of his GOAT reputation and the fact that he beat the Bills more than any other team. We just shouldn't lose sight of this still being a team vs. team rivalry and the current wording better reflects this. I'll be curious to see how the rivalry plays out now that the Bills lead the division - if Mac Jones pans out for the Patriots, as Josh Allen has for the Bills, we may also have an Allen–Jones rivalry article. Bluerules (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bills–Patriots_rivalry&oldid=1206301651"