Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) I was thinking today, what if the Pats didn't have 6 games a year against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets? Let's say they switched places with the Browns and were in the AFC North with the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. Are they still as good today? I think it's possible that they may have gone to a few Super Bowls but not 9. I personally think 6 guaranteed wins every year against the AFC East or 5-1 or 4-2 at the very worst has had a lot to do with their dominance. If they played 6 games a year against the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, I honestly think they lose an extra 2 to 3 wins a year just from being in a much tougher division. I know them being in the AFC East is no fault of their own. However, I don't see the dominance they have had the last 20 years outside of the East Edited February 4, 2019 by Buffalo03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 When did this place turn into a Patriots forum? 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Joshin' Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 They did not win their Super Bowls vs AFCE. Maybe a few more regular season losses but still dominance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dokken Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/patriots-win-same-rate-vs-rest-nfl-they-do-vs-afc-east Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Well considering our division isn’t who they are beating in playoffs and Super Bowls the answer is obviously a resounding YES 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Just Joshin' said: They did not win their Super Bowls vs AFCE. Maybe a few more regular season losses but still dominance. Those extra regular season losses lead to less number 1 and number 2 seeds every year in the playoffs though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said: I was thinking today, what if the Pats didn't have 6 games a year against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets? Let's say they switched places with the Browns and were in the AFC North with the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. Are they still as good today? I think it's possible that they may have gone to a few Super Bowls but I personally think 6 guaranteed wins every year against the AFC East or 5-1 or 4-2 at the very worst has had a lot to do with their dominance. If they played 6 games a year against the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, I honestly think they lose an extra 2 to 3 wins a year just from being in a much tougher division. I know them being in the AFC East is no fault of their own. However, I don't see the dominance they have had the last 20 years outside of the East Here are some facts for you to consider: Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams. Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league. And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season. What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE. 3 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rc2catch Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 I don’t think the division matters much. They have proven in the playoffs on the road or at home they can win. It’s almost over thank god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Shaw66 said: Here are some facts for you to consider: Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams. Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league. And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season. What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE. They only play 2 opponents per year that are different than what the rest of the division plays. Every team in the division plays one whole other division and one whole NFC division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 5 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said: They did not win their Super Bowls vs AFCE. Maybe a few more regular season losses but still dominance. When they want to they beat everyone. Belichick can out scheme every coach in the league blindfolded. Do they get breaks from the NFL? Yes, but they would still dominate. They're just better. Brady is the Witch and Bill is the Wizard. And until they retire we'll always be chasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rc2catch said: I don’t think the division matters much. They have proven in the playoffs on the road or at home they can win. It’s almost over thank god So you don't think 6 games a year against the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals would have made any difference? Those have been much better teams than the Jets, Bills and Dolphins. I don't think 9 Super Bowl apparences is possible in that division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Yes they would be. The AFCE is good for about 1 extra win every other year. Pats just won on the road in KC. Here is how the numbers read Brady vs: AFCE 81-21=.794 NFL 207-62=.769 NFL sans AFCE games 126-41 = .754 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Joe Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 They don’t beat the AFCE in the playoffs or the SB so yes.. 17 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said: So you don't think 6 games a year against the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals would have made any difference? Brady is something like 8-1 against the Steelers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) whb 810 in kansas city which has a show called the program from 10am til 2 and is phenominal. They did research on this there winning percentage is highest agaist afc west..the nfc east...then nfc north ...then afc they are all above .600 except the nfc west at 575 i believe. So to answer the question its an obvious yes and if you listen you will quickly be reminded how bad wgr compared to other stations. Edited February 4, 2019 by CardinalScotts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco_92 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) There are divisions in which they would have been slightly more, and slightly less, dominant. With probably little change in the end results which matter. Like, same number of SB wins, maybe 8-10 fewer regular season wins over 20 years. Edited February 4, 2019 by arcane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Success Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 40 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: Here are some facts for you to consider: Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams. Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league. And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season. What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE. Pats fans repeat this a lot in response to the weak division criticism. It’s only partially valid, imo. They are all-time great, no doubt. And they would have won a lot regardless. But their reign DID coincide with a fairly unprecedented run of complete incompetence from their division rivals. And that helped. Even this season- just a slightly tougher division probably means no bye for them, and a much less likely shot at #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, Success said: Pats fans repeat this a lot in response to the weak division criticism. It’s only partially valid, imo. They are all-time great, no doubt. And they would have won a lot regardless. But their reign DID coincide with a fairly unprecedented run of complete incompetence from their division rivals. And that helped. Even this season- just a slightly tougher division probably means no bye for them, and a much less likely shot at #6. They beat the no. 1 seed on the road this year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Semantics. Their run over the course of 20 years against the rest of the league in the playoffs removes doubt that their postseason success is bound up in the slacking of their AFCE rivals. Can't stand them with every fibre of my football being, and am ready to turn the tables on them. Allen has never had a full off-season as the annointed #1 here, so I'm expecting big things from him in 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 9 minutes ago, Mango said: They beat the no. 1 seed on the road this year.... Dee Ford is the reason for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haslett_Stomp Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 This same argument was brought up repeatedly during the Bills' dominance of the AFC in the early '90s. I don't think it was relevant then or now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Just Joshin' said: They did not win their Super Bowls vs AFCE. Maybe a few more regular season losses but still dominance. The AFC rarely has forced its best teams to go full out more than a few times a season the NFC is far more competitive among its top teams the last 50 or so years The Pats were probably able to rise to any challenge that was added, the AFCE has been a total joke for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) It’s an interesting question. I’ll say no because I think that they would have encountered more resistance (and more road playoff games) if they would have been trudging through the AFC North. They would still be great (and all-time great) I’m just not sure it would be 6 Super Bowl wins and 9 appearances great. Edited February 4, 2019 by Kirby Jackson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, Haslett_Stomp said: This same argument was brought up repeatedly during the Bills' dominance of the AFC in the early '90s. I don't think it was relevant then or now. The Dolphins were good back then to. So we at least played against another team twice a year that was a great team. The Pats have not had to worry about one great Dolphins, Bills or Jets team at all in the 20 years they have been dominant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 just hope they don't go out and find even a useful WR to take a bit of the pressure off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloMatt Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 It'll end one day. Not sure when but it will. Storied franchises eventually have to reboot. SF GB Dallas. . . . . . We need a little more patience. AND I hope that Marcia and the Evil one ride into to the sunset on the heels of a playoff loss and not a seventh title. So don't retire, don't leave on top, don't leave on your own terms. This way when they try for one more and don't succeed their final memory will be one of failure. OR at least that's what I hope will happen. And wouldn't that be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st pete gogolak Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Absolutely, it's a factor. Maybe not a huge factor but certainly one. How many times has NE advanced from a #3 or #4 seed to the Super Bowl? They live or die on being the #1 or #2 seed. If Houston doesn't lose to Philly this year, NE is #3 seed - no bye week for Brady, most likely two games on the road. Do they make it to the Super Bowl? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a great team and Belichek is clearly the best head coach of all time, but being in a division with three weak sisters for 20 years (!) has certainly helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Buffalo03 said: I was thinking today, what if the Pats didn't have 6 games a year against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets? Let's say they switched places with the Browns and were in the AFC North with the Steelers, Ravens and Bengals. Are they still as good today? I think it's possible that they may have gone to a few Super Bowls but not 9. I personally think 6 guaranteed wins every year against the AFC East or 5-1 or 4-2 at the very worst has had a lot to do with their dominance. If they played 6 games a year against the Steelers, Bengals and Ravens, I honestly think they lose an extra 2 to 3 wins a year just from being in a much tougher division. I know them being in the AFC East is no fault of their own. However, I don't see the dominance they have had the last 20 years outside of the East Based upon the overall numbers - I think it has little impact, but my biggest question is why remove the Browns and not the Ravens. I think with the Browns in there you are looking at 5-6 wins yearly just as now. Put them in the AFC North with the Browns, Bengals, and Steelers and I think each of those teams looks just as incompetent as the 3 AFC East teams. I believe the Pats would have had just as many wins and titles, but the AFC East with Buffalo, Miami, and the Jets (throw in Baltimore) suddenly gets much better and more balanced and no longer is the incompetent mess they were losing to NE. The winning percentage of NE in the AFC east versus the rest of the AFC and the NFL in general is pretty consistent- I believe logically- wherever they play - they win just about the same as the do know and it is just another group of teams that look incompetent and go through coaches like mad trying to find an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 27 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said: Absolutely, it's a factor. Maybe not a huge factor but certainly one. How many times has NE advanced from a #3 or #4 seed to the Super Bowl? They live or die on being the #1 or #2 seed. If Houston doesn't lose to Philly this year, NE is #3 seed - no bye week for Brady, most likely two games on the road. Do they make it to the Super Bowl? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a great team and Belichek is clearly the best head coach of all time, but being in a division with three weak sisters for 20 years (!) has certainly helped. does the fact we've been crying on here since 2001 make you pause from bothering to come up with stats and scenarios that don't change what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Yes. They have won all these Superbowls, it wouldn't have mattered where they played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Buffalo03 said: Those extra regular season losses lead to less number 1 and number 2 seeds every year in the playoffs though You have not proved they would have lost any more - the percentage is just too close to assume if they played more - the percentage would not increase in NE favor and other teams like Pittsburgh would be struggling and changing coaches if they do not make the playoffs for 15 years. Edited February 4, 2019 by Rochesterfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 It IS a factor. The cyclical nature of the NFL SHOULD have saddled the Patriots with Division competitors, probably on a regular basis. There has been no competition at the top of the Division, and 6 fairly easy games. Have been able to coast to the finish line a bit, and the edge in schedule has "earned" them a lot of home playoff games and byes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Success said: Pats fans repeat this a lot in response to the weak division criticism. It’s only partially valid, imo. They are all-time great, no doubt. And they would have won a lot regardless. But their reign DID coincide with a fairly unprecedented run of complete incompetence from their division rivals. And that helped. Even this season- just a slightly tougher division probably means no bye for them, and a much less likely shot at #6. Is it a run of incompetence or because NE has been so dominant- the teams are constantly changing because they don’t win. How different would things be if NE was going 5-1 against another division and the Bills division was up for grabs freely each year like the AFC North. Would AFC east coaches have gotten longer if they made the playoffs - Would that stability have made this division look better and another division look worse? It is valid to wonder how the coaching carousel in the AFC east would be different without the dominant team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 2 hours ago, Buffalo03 said: They only play 2 opponents per year that are different than what the rest of the division plays. Every team in the division plays one whole other division and one whole NFC division. I understand that. That means that of ten games outside the division, two are against playoff teams from the season before that the Jets, phins and Bill's don't have to play. So 20% of their schedule is tougher, and they win more against that schedule than they win against the AFCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 They dominate and expose everyone. Those other teams would’ve experienced a similar fate getting exposed by Belichik twice per year. They should consider themselves lucky they only have to go through that every couple years instead of twice per year. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 28 minutes ago, May Day 10 said: It IS a factor. The cyclical nature of the NFL SHOULD have saddled the Patriots with Division competitors, probably on a regular basis. There has been no competition at the top of the Division, and 6 fairly easy games. Have been able to coast to the finish line a bit, and the edge in schedule has "earned" them a lot of home playoff games and byes. it's been an amazing run for the Bills to be this mediocre for almost all of the last 20 years and add the Fish and Jets as well at least the Colts left the AFCE so we didn't see Peyton for two more automatic losses during his career (or something like that...) the three teams being this crummy is a larger odds against than the Pats being this good for 20 seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo03 Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 36 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: You have not proved they would have lost any more - the percentage is just too close to assume if they played more - the percentage would not increase in NE favor and other teams like Pittsburgh would be struggling and changing coaches if they do not make the playoffs for 15 years. Anytime the Pats have made the Super Bowl they have been a number 1 or 2 seed. They have never made the Super Bowl when less than a 2 seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Success Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 The Bills will be one if the most beloved teams in the nation if we can finally step up and end this reign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Why bother with useless conjecture? Seriously, what is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 15 minutes ago, K-9 said: Why bother with useless conjecture? Seriously, what is the point? Why bother with anything at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: It’s an interesting question. I’ll say no because I think that they would have encountered more resistance (and more road playoff games) if they would have been trudging through the AFC North. They would still be great (and all-time great) I’m just not sure it would be 6 Super Bowl wins and 9 appearances great. I was also thinking a few more road playoff games might put a dent in their totals. I was surprised that their record vs the AFCE is so similar to the rest of the league. I was expecting more disparity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts