Jump to content

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


Buffalo03

Recommended Posts

I would think they'd be a game or two worse if Brady played in a division with a quarterback who's excelled in the same time frame Brady has.  That would include Roethlisberger (AFC North), Manning/Luck (AFC South), Brees (NFC East), and Favre/Rodgers (NFC North).  I think if they played in one of those divisions they would've made one or two more losses making them less likely to have home field. 

 

In the Brady/Belichick era......

 

They went to the Superbowl 6 out of 7 times they had home field advantage.

They went to the Superbowl 3 of 9 times they made the playoffs but didn't have home field advantage.

 

My guess is they'd make 1 to 3 less Superbowls in one of those four divisions because they didn't lock up home field advantage.  Who knows though.  Those numbers above are ridiculous btw.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cmdjr85 said:

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. 

 

Yup

 

When reality can’t be embraced, people chase after ghosts and dream up scenarios that make them feel better....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

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

 

 

Yes I understand - but the data indicates that since they beat those other teams at a very similar rate - nothing may change.  Those games currently mean less and Belicheck has less film and tendencies for those teams and yet still wins at a clip similar to the AFC east and has completely dominated teams like Pittsburgh that have competed for the #1 seed.  

 

There is nothing that indicates moving them to the AFC north would suddenly make them lose out on the division title and a 1 or 2 seed.  The reality would be that suddenly teams like Pittsburgh or Cincinnati would most likely lose 1-2 more games a season on average and coaches like Tomlin and Lewis would have been fired for not winning divisions and making the playoffs - thus making that division seem more unstable.

 

At the same time adding 1-2 wins to teams in the AFC east mean years where the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins not only make the playoffs, but win the division and get wildcard games.  Therefore some of the coaching turnover that has occurred in this division gets reversed and the teams all look more stable and like the rest of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I would think they'd be a game or two worse if Brady played in a division with a quarterback who's excelled in the same time frame Brady has.  That would include Roethlisberger (AFC North), Manning/Luck (AFC South), Brees (NFC East), and Favre/Rodgers (NFC North).  I think if they played in one of those divisions they would've made one or two more losses making them less likely to have home field. 

 

In the Brady/Belichick era......

 

They went to the Superbowl 6 out of 7 times they had home field advantage.

They went to the Superbowl 3 of 9 times they made the playoffs but didn't have home field advantage.

 

My guess is they'd make 1 to 3 less Superbowls in one of those four divisions because they didn't lock up home field advantage.  Who knows though.  Those numbers above are ridiculous btw.  

 

 

That may be, but taking Roethlisberger for example - he has like 1 win and like 8 loses versus NE - how would his legacy be changed if instead of Cleveland or Cincinnati to beat up on - he had NE.  

 

You probably end up taking away his Super Bowl and several of his playoff appearances with 2 more losses a year.  If like the teams in the AFC east - the Steelers miss the playoffs for 4 or 5 years are they as patient with Tomlin - I mean he was almost let go after missing the playoffs this year.  Basically are they the same Steelers if NE is in the division beating them twice a season on average.

 

In addition - currently he only plays those teams once every couple of years - so his overall film and knowledge is not as in depth as against AFC east teams - give BB more reason to win those games i.e. division games and I think it has little impact overall on NE, but a huge impact on that division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 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

Different divisionnyes.  Different era No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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.

 

 

Scott, respectfully, even cherry picking out the Browns I think they regularly would sweep the bengals and Baltimore (yes), and split or sometimes sweep the Steelers.  Throw in the occasional upset and I still think the average might be 4.5 or more wins a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone who is saying it would make no difference because of the Pats records against those teams currently is taking into effect that they would be playing those teams twice a year. The Ravens have always given the Pats a hard time even in NE. The Pats playing them once they probably win. Playing them a second time in Baltimore, I don't think it's that much of a guarantee. The Pats lost in Pittsburgh this season and almost lost in Pittsburgh last season if not for that catch controversy. The Pats have averaged 12 wins or more every year pretty much and I honestly believe playing those other teams twice a year gives them another loss or two which then gives them a higher chance of being knocked out of a first round bye that they have been getting every year. They aren't as good in the playoffs when they play on wild card weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Baltimore? How you figure?

 

Scott I may be wrong, but I believe Baltimore has beat them once over the the past few years.

 

...and I don't think Baltimore is very good, other than their SB run...I just don't.

 

however, I do get that that could be me.

 

The 4.5 wins per year is because Baltimore would sneak in with a win every once in awhile.

 

Either way I honestly believe the Patriots are just as successful.  I think it is Pittsburgh, and not NE, that gets hurt by this alignment.

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

8 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

Scott I may be wrong, but I believe Baltimore has beat them once over the the past few years.

 

...and I don't think Baltimore is very good, other than their SB run...I just don't.

 

however, I do get that that could be me.

 

The 4.5 wins per year is because Baltimore would sneak in with a win every once in awhile.

 

Either way I honestly believe the Patriots are just as successful.  I think it is Pittsburgh, and not NE, that gets hurt by this alignment.

Exactly. The Steelers for whatever reason have almost never been able to solve the Pats rubik's cube, and that combined with the Ravens playing them tough not infrequently, would've made life a lot more difficult for Tomlin & Co coming out of there, imho. 

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

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Obviously it depends what division you'd put them in.

 

But they absolutely dominate Buffalo. The guy is 30-3 against them. Outside of the Browns, I can't imagine them having more success against any other team. 

 

Maybe, but Brady in the Regular season is 6-1 versus Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Cleveland over the years. At that rate against those three teams they would be 29 - 4 against each of them rather than 30 - 3.  Pittsburgh with their 8-2 regular season mark would be 26 - 7 or 27 - 6 over the same time period.

 

In reality based upon regular season numbers in a division with Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh - NE would actually see their win totals increase by getting away from Miami - meaning they might actually have been better in this scenario.

 

The reality is - who knows what would have happened, but to assume all of a sudden the Pats would not be the same is a real stretch as they dominate the AFC north just as much as the AFC east.

 

They have similar regular season dominance over the AFC south and most of the AFC west.  It seems only Denver really has their number - especially in the playoffs.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a possibility that in another division the Pats might’ve come across more trouble.  But there’s  also a much higher possibility that every other team in NFL would’ve suffered the same fate as Bills, Jets, and Dolphins the last 17 years.  You think Goff would’ve ever developed if he had to get exposed twice a year by Belichik.  Belichik is merciless especially against AFC East opponents.  He steals their soul and collects AFC East titles while they spin their wheels.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.  The chances of making the Super Bowl increase dramatically when you win your division and get a bye in the playoffs.

It's not just about beating bad teams 5-6 times per year.  It's about the other franchises in the AFC East being virtually incapable of winning 10+ games, and actually competing for the division title.

 

Since Tom Brady came around, neither the Bills, Jets or Dolphins have managed to land a Top 15 franchise QB (not counting Sam Darnold and Josh Allen yet).

The closest we have come was Drew Bledsoe, who played good for half a season and regressed.  The closest the Jets came was getting Brett Favre during his last pathetic pre-retirement year.  The closest the Dolphins came was Chad Pennington.

 

Now, name one other division (AFC or NFC) where only ONE team has managed to land a franchise QB for 15-20 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

There’s a possibility that in another division the Pats might’ve come across more trouble.  But there’s  also a much higher possibility that every other team in NFL would’ve suffered the same fate as Bills, Jets, and Dolphins the last 17 years.  You think Goff would’ve ever developed if he had to get exposed twice a year by Belichik.  Belichik is merciless especially against AFC East opponents.  He steals their soul and collects AFC East titles while they spin their wheels.  

 

no question the Pats would have faced more challenges each season away from the 3 AFCE Stooges

 

but great teams under control play to just enough of a level to win the game, sometimes it backfires, the Pats shrugged and lost to a few mediocre teams in 2018 because they didn't care enough to make the 4th quarter push. 

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

They've dominated the league, so by definition they'd dominate a division.

 

i'll rest on this answer in full agreement

 

you only have to win the game you are playing

 

and sometimes you don't have to look that great doing it

 

the question is what the heck are teams going to do starting in 2019 to knock them off the duck boats?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 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

No, because the constant winning by the Pats in that division would have led to the same cycle of quick firings among all those organizations that has occurred in the AFC East. 

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

There’s a possibility that in another division the Pats might’ve come across more trouble.  But there’s  also a much higher possibility that every other team in NFL would’ve suffered the same fate as Bills, Jets, and Dolphins the last 17 years.  You think Goff would’ve ever developed if he had to get exposed twice a year by Belichik.  Belichik is merciless especially against AFC East opponents.  He steals their soul and collects AFC East titles while they spin their wheels.  

Also, I strongly believe that if Belichick is in your division, your longevity as a GM or head coach is dramatically shortened. Just look at the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets.

Edited by dave mcbride
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

No, because the constant winning by the Pats in that division would have led to the same cycle of quick firings among all those organizations that has occurred in the AFC East. 

Also, I strongly believe that if Belichick is in your division, your longevity as a GM or head coach is dramatically shortened. Just look at the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets.

The Bills, Dolphins and Jets have sucked as franchises over the last 20 years. That's why they have been through a lot of coaches and GMs. Not Belichick

Edited by Buffalo03
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...