Jump to content

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


Buffalo03

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

 

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

 

It's not so much that the three teams have been crummy - it's that they've been pretty consistently mediocre.   Over the Pats' reign, and excluding their games against the Pats, all three teams are just under .500, and they haven't had prolonged stretches of really, really inept play like the Browns did.   Over the past 20 years it's reasonable to assume that one of those teams would have had a stretch where they were good.  Jets have been the best, winning 10 or 11 five times in the new centuries.  But they didn't put together a prolonged run.  2008-2011 wasn't bad, 9, 9 , 11 and 8 wins.  That's pretty good, given that they had to play the Pats twice each season.  2000 to 2003 Dolphins won 11, 11, 9 and 10, but that was just at the beginning of the Pats' run.  Since then they've been regularly mediocre.  

 

It's true the AFCE east didn't put together another premier team over the period of Pats dominance, but the Steelers only had the Ravens occasionally and the Bengals to worry about.   The Colts had more or less no one.  

 

The fact is that the Pats, Colts and Steelers are the only AFC teams who were more or less consistent winners.  Chiefs and Chargers rarely were horrible, but they generally haven't been scaring anyone.   

 

So, yeah, although it's true the three AFCE teams didn't mount much of a threat to the Pats, that's not very surprising.  I'll say it again - the Pats' success is about the Pats.  

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

6 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

However, I don't see the dominance they have had the last 20 years outside of the East

Ugh... the Super Bowl is the best of one conference versus the best of the other conference.

 

AFCE has zero to do with it.

 

Patsies could be AFC-Timbuktu champs and that would have zip to do with their Super Bowl record.

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

You see their post season record right?

 

Brady has a .750 POSTSEASON record!

How often do you think he's playing against the AFC East in the postseason? The answer is twice in 40 games (both against the Jets). So at the very least, anywhere they were in the AFC they'd still be just as dominant.

The real question is would the Bills have made the postseason more in another division? Because starting off your season with an automatic 0-2 handicap for the most part is a pretty tough hill to climb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

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

They have mostly owned Pittsburgh and Cincinnati already, Baltimore has given them trouble on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

You see their post season record right?

 

Brady has a .750 POSTSEASON record!

How often do you think he's playing against the AFC East in the postseason? The answer is twice in 40 games (both against the Jets). So at the very least, anywhere they were in the AFC they'd still be just as dominant.

The real question is would the Bills have made the postseason more in another division? Because starting off your season with an automatic 0-2 handicap for the most part is a pretty tough hill to climb.

 

The 13 years with byes could count as a win as well, to put it in context....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being in the AFC  east HAS basically ensured that they get a first round bye in the playoffs. This is HUGE! They only need 2 wins to be in the Super Bowl, versus having to grind out a hard win in the first round.

 

Without that first round bye, things would be different, and that would change if they were in a more competitive division. 

Edited by Idandria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Idandria said:

Being in the AFC  east HAS basically ensured that they get a first round bye in the playoffs. This is HUGE! They only need 2 wins to be in the Super Bowl, versus having to grind out a hard win in the first round. With out that cost bye, things would be different, and that would change if they were in a more competitive division. 

 

It’s rare a top team is challenged in Wild Card Weekend, they aren’t even playing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Why bother with anything at all?

Because the list of things to bother about is endless, that’s why.

 

Throwing conjecture at an alternate reality isn’t one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 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

 

Flip side- do 2 extra losses make someone like Flacco a bust that never makes it if you put him in the pats division?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, putting it another way, could the Bills have broken the drought here or there before 17 years elapsed, had they not had 2 more virtually guaranteed L’s on their schedule? The years where 8-8 or 9-7 just weren’t good enough, but had they played in a division without the Patsies maybe things could’ve been different? 

  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Not really.

 

The division is typically a joke for the Patriots year in and year out.... and they thoroughly dominant the Bills. The Dolphins are the only team in the division that seems to consistently give the Patriots a challenge. The Jets did for a little during the Rex years. 

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

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

That doesn’t look like we are a secret ingredient to the automatic Super Bowl success. 

 

I messed up the post, but you get the point. Credit to @Mango for the numbers. 

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

4 hours ago, BigDingus said:

You see their post season record right?

 

Brady has a .750 POSTSEASON record!

How often do you think he's playing against the AFC East in the postseason? The answer is twice in 40 games (both against the Jets). So at the very least, anywhere they were in the AFC they'd still be just as dominant.

The real question is would the Bills have made the postseason more in another division? Because starting off your season with an automatic 0-2 handicap for the most part is a pretty tough hill to climb.

Beat me to it; that’s a heck of a handicap when every game matters 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I was saying not really to his post.

 

They'd still be the Pats, but if you put them in a division like the AFC North instead of the Browns, they probably don't have 6 Super Bowl wins throughout their run.

 

We’ll never know, but it’s nice that you are consistent.   ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

The 13 years with byes could count as a win as well, to put it in context....

 

13 years of playoff byes? I mean that just shows how dominant they've been in the regular season to EARN that spot. And there's always 3 other teams that have a first round bye, yet they didn't go to 9 Super Bowls, winning 6 of them, or play in over 2 full seasons worth of playoff games compiling a .750 win rate.

Out of all teams that could be negatively effected by playing 1 extra game in the WC, it wouldn't be the Patriots.

A Bye doesn't mean you just have it easy either. Look at Peyton Manning. He had 8 First Round Byes, and he was 3-5 in those games. The only Super Bowl he ever won was from the Wild Card spot in 2006. And Manning was considered one of the best, if not the best, QB of all-time talent & skill wise by many (until Brady just kept on winning even more Super Bowls).

 

Edit: And btw, none of Manning's losses in the Divisional Round after having a 1st Round Bye came at the hands of the Patriots. 

He lost to: Dolphins ('00), Steelers ('05), Chargers ('07), Ravens ('12), and Colts ('14)

Edited by BigDingus
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 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.

The would be great in any division or any conference. But none of thay matters, they are in the afc east and they have dominated it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...