Jump to content

Would the Patriots still have been this dominant in a different division?


Buffalo03

Recommended Posts

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

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 by Kirby Jackson
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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 by Rochesterfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...