I've been thinking about this for years. It's really hard to put into an article to explain, but I'll try.

Start with fake teams. "The Cougars are better than the Corsairs". How do you know? Well, there are a bunch of stats we can use, comparison stats with common opponents, eye test, whatever. That was the whole point of Football Outsiders and there various DVOA-ish acronyms.

But still, that's just a prediction of who would likely win if they played. In the NFL, you can never play a team more than 3 times, and that's only if you meet a Division rival in the playoffs. Otherwise, it's almost always just once. And even with the Division rivals you play twice, or the team from the other Conference that you meet a 2nd time in the Super Bowl, there's the home-field advantage aspect, vs a neutral field maybe, and then you have injuries, or young players improving during the season.

Andy Reid often treats the games before the Bye as an experiment, self-scouts during the bye, and then comes out knowing what his best position group combos and plays are. And then self-scouts his late-season tendencies to bring out a bunch of surprises at each level of the playoffs. So play the Chiefs twice during a season, you're playing a different team. Perhaps.

Then there's the fact that big plays happen. Someone doesn't grip the ball right and it slips out. Or an OL slips and the EDGE gets through for a sack. Or the EDGE saves his unstoppable move for the key moment in the game, having set up the OT for it.

So they win the game. Does that make them better?

Well, yeah. That's the only thing you really have to go on. On THAT day, in THAT situation, they won. Play the game 10 times, maybe you have a different result, but you can't. And even those 10 games would have different teams facing each other due to injuries.

So how did you get that sack or get that turnover? Well, the coaches put the right players in situations where they could make a play. And they did that better than the other team did for their players.

So that means your team being better than the other team isn't due to players, but due to coaching and schemes.

Maybe it's easier to put TJ Watt or Myles Garrett in the position to make a game-changing play than it is Mike Danna? Okay, so drafting matters. So maybe one team being better than another team isn't that the coaching is better or worse, but because they drafted better, crafted better deals to get more skilled players, or did their homework to avoid injury risks or locker room cancer.

But then, drafting is weird, right? Myles Garrett was drafted #1 overall and worth it. Jadeveon Clowney was drafted #1 overall and probably wasn't. Ah, then it is the GM and drafting process that makes a team better or worse than another. Well, what about Jamarcus Russell, who got a fat contract then got fat. Maybe he was good and his coaching staff didn't motivate him. Maybe he had a bad attitude and no one could have motivated him. After he got his salary and was happy with it, who can say?

Are the Colts worse because Andrew Luck got tired of doing rehab and quit?

So much depends on the player. Chris Jones was known for taking off plays, and earning a consistent starting spot took a few years because he would ignore his run stop responsibilities to pass rush. Then he figured it out, because an All Pro. Look at Trey Hendrickson's first 3 seasons or Antonio Brown's first season. Did they become All Pros because of pure ability? Then why not their first year? Coaching? Personal drive to improve? Teammates? The light going on? Becoming the focal point of a scheme?

Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round. Mahomes was drafted 10th overall instead of first. Antonio Brown was drafted in the 6th round. Puka Nakua was drafted in the 5th. Were those GMs brilliant for waiting until the right moment to get these All Pros late in the draft? Or did they just take someone that seemed like a decent pick at that time, and the player just happened to fit in to the scheme he was drafted in better than anyone expected?

I know that's a crapton of rhetorical questions. Bide with me while I delay making my point.

If Joe Burrow were drafted to the Ravens he wouldn't be as good, but if Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen had gone to the Bengals they've have 3 Rings already. Bills fans call their head coach a bum. Some Chiefs fans call Veach a bum because he hasn't drafted obvious Hall of Famers like Chris Jones, Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill and Patrick Mahomes. You know: it's EASY to draft Hall of Famers like that. The players' individual desire to be great or to coast after getting paid, the coaching staff developing their talent and using them in the right way has nothing to do with it. It's just the GM can spot Hall of Fame talent or he can't.

Obviously, that's ridiculous. I wonder if this is the the brain corruption from Fantasy Football that lets you build a team with players' individual efforts. But you can't just mix and match players. You can't say Mahomes would have just as many Rings if the Bills had drafted him instead of trading out, and you can't say Josh Allen would have 8 undefeated seasons and 8 Rings if he had gone to a team with Andy Reid, Tyreek, Chris Jones, and Kelce. Yes, I've actually seen someone say this.

Bill Belichick was once considered possibly the greatest head coach in the history of the NFL, and there were arguments over whether the Patriots Rings and overall success was Brady or Bill. And that answer was apparently answered when Tom went to a very loaded Buccaneers team and got a Ring, and Bill got fired for driving Brady off and missing the playoffs with a first round drafted QB.

(Personally, I don't think that it HAS gotten answered from that. I thought, and still think, it was BOTH of them. They complemented each other)

My point is, I guess, that hypotheticals will always remain hypotheticals. All you can do is look at who won, and why, and how, and judge that team, that player, that QB, that coach, based on what they did.

All you can do is line up with the team you have, play the scheme you were taught, carry out the game plan that was developed, and see how it turns out.

People want to say Mahomes was washed for his poor performance against the Eagles in 2024. The 2025 season gave them fuel for the fire. Then they'll turn around and say that Mahomes was never actually good, it was just that he went to a Hall of Fame coach in Andy Reid, a guy who never won one before and whose offenses were generally middle of the pack before Mahomes came.

I think what Reid does is assemble a team by looking for players other teams don't value for the main system the NFL is using. Then he develops systems they will excel in, and puts players in the position to succeed, and almost always has his team outperform expectations based on paper.

Most of the time.

Then you have the 2024 Super Bowl, where his game plan was obviously so anticipated by the Eagles that the game was over almost before it began.

But that doesn't take away what the Chiefs had accomplished in getting to the Super Bowl, or in winning in previous years.

It's just more data that simultaneously exists in isolation (that game), semi-isolation (the LT was actually a G) and in context of years (5th different LT starting in 5 Super Bowls).

It doesn't mean the Chiefs were actually the better team and got ripped off (like the excuses that come out when the Chiefs win). What it means is that the Eagles won the Super Bowl. You can draw conclusions from it, but most people try to draw conclusions that aren't supportable because of jealousy, grievances over losses, or general online irritability.

The lesson, which is kind of different from the point, is that arguing over who REALLY is better is dependent on so many factors that most people never consider (for fear it might undermine their narrative) that it is just kind of pointless.

Just enjoy the game. Enjoy the seasons. Enjoy the moments before they're gone. Let the next generation, the one that doesn't have a vested interest in a favorite team or favorite player, decide who really was the best team, coach, player, etc., after all the careers are done and you can look at things in total.