Jump to content

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


Buffalo03

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I think the ravens beat them in foxboro in 09.

 

was that the early avalanche on the Pats where it like 21-0 before all the fans had filed into the stadium?

 

 

 

the worst performance by the Pats in the playoffs

 

the loss to the Broncos was another one, with Brady chasing after Lynch 20 yards after a play

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Between 2000 and 2010, the Jets had 8 winning seasons and 6 playoff appearances.

Were they really that great of a team? I don't think so. Chad Pennington and Mark Sanchez as QBs. Two fluke years under Rex Ryan. What have they done since 2011? Nothing and the Bills and Dolphins have sucked the whole time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buffalo03 said:

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

 

 

I just wonder how much they would have sucked if taking your though experiment and moving NE and Cleveland.  In that scenario with just giving the Bills 1 win against Cleveland instead of the 2 loses to NE there is a chance the Bills make the playoffs 6 times in the last 15 years and have 3 division titles (3 WC would come down to tiebreakers so it is close). The Jets would win the division 6 times and the Dolphins 4 times.  Cleveland and Buffalo would have 1 season with a tiebreaker.  

 

You don’t think that 5 additional playoff appearances and the potential of some back to back years would not have changed significantly the culture and the number of coaching changes for each of these teams.

 

Additionally Just quickly looking at the impact to just Pittsburgh - assuming the 1 additional loss having NE instead of Cleveland and using NE record - Pittsburgh goes from 8 division titles and 2 WCs to just 5 potential WC spots over the 15 years - so does missing the playoffs potentially 5 years in a row in the late 2000 get Tomlin fired?  It has a huge impact because no longer is Pittsburgh considered a yearly division winner - they are now the NYJs getting in on a few random years as a wild card.

 

The implications for Baltimore and Cincinnati are even worse moving them out of the playoffs several times where they just snuck in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I just wonder how much they would have sucked if taking your though experiment and moving NE and Cleveland.  In that scenario with just giving the Bills 1 win against Cleveland instead of the 2 loses to NE there is a chance the Bills make the playoffs 6 times in the last 15 years and have 3 division titles (3 WC would come down to tiebreakers so it is close). The Jets would win the division 6 times and the Dolphins 4 times.  Cleveland and Buffalo would have 1 season with a tiebreaker.  

 

You don’t think that 5 additional playoff appearances and the potential of some back to back years would not have changed significantly the culture and the number of coaching changes for each of these teams.

 

Additionally Just quickly looking at the impact to just Pittsburgh - assuming the 1 additional loss having NE instead of Cleveland and using NE record - Pittsburgh goes from 8 division titles and 2 WCs to just 5 potential WC spots over the 15 years - so does missing the playoffs potentially 5 years in a row in the late 2000 get Tomlin fired?  It has a huge impact because no longer is Pittsburgh considered a yearly division winner - they are now the NYJs getting in on a few random years as a wild card.

 

The implications for Baltimore and Cincinnati are even worse moving them out of the playoffs several times where they just snuck in.

 

 

One last thing to as food for thought - if we switched NE and Cleveland and gave the AFC east just one additional victory from Cleveland versus the 2 loses against NE -  The Bills in the last 15 years would have more playoff appearances and more division titles than the Steelers.  

 

The entire AFC east would seem better overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Pop the Pats in a another division and whatever division that is has a FO and HC clown show like the AFCE has witnessed the last 19 years. BB is a straight up coach and FO killer.

 

Since 2000

Dolphins - 10 HC

Bills - 9 HC

Jets - 5 HC

 

Just sickening.

 

 

 

...put 'em in their OWN division...call it the AFNE....save money and have six trophies engraved at a time.............

Edited by OldTimeAFLGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

I just wonder how much they would have sucked if taking your though experiment and moving NE and Cleveland.  In that scenario with just giving the Bills 1 win against Cleveland instead of the 2 loses to NE there is a chance the Bills make the playoffs 6 times in the last 15 years and have 3 division titles (3 WC would come down to tiebreakers so it is close). The Jets would win the division 6 times and the Dolphins 4 times.  Cleveland and Buffalo would have 1 season with a tiebreaker.  

 

You don’t think that 5 additional playoff appearances and the potential of some back to back years would not have changed significantly the culture and the number of coaching changes for each of these teams.

 

Additionally Just quickly looking at the impact to just Pittsburgh - assuming the 1 additional loss having NE instead of Cleveland and using NE record - Pittsburgh goes from 8 division titles and 2 WCs to just 5 potential WC spots over the 15 years - so does missing the playoffs potentially 5 years in a row in the late 2000 get Tomlin fired?  It has a huge impact because no longer is Pittsburgh considered a yearly division winner - they are now the NYJs getting in on a few random years as a wild card.

 

The implications for Baltimore and Cincinnati are even worse moving them out of the playoffs several times where they just snuck in.

 

The Bills can’t line up consistently for any given snap, they cant catch a ball right in their hands, they can’t trust a QB with a whole series on O without looking to the sidelines for each play, that is not winning 11 games in a season 

 

 

It has been very unlucky to have the Griese Fish and Brady Pats in the division to cakewalk over the Bills the entire 70s and 2001 to 2018 and counting 

 

Boo hoo hoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

The Bills can’t line up consistently for any given snap, they cant catch a ball right in their hands, they can’t trust a QB with a whole series on O without looking to the sidelines for each play, that is not winning 11 games in a season 

 

...Pats have won the last 10 AFCE titles and 15 out of the last 17.....other than Jets & Fins.....Bflo is NOT alone in divisional mediocrity, astonishing as it is......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mjt328 said:

It's about the other franchises in the AFC East being virtually incapable of winning 10+ games, and actually competing for the division title.

 

 

I'm not going to sit here and argue that the Bills Jets and Dolphins were good competition for the Patriots - those three teams haven't put many competitive teams on the field.   

 

But you have to understand that what you just said sounds great, but it isn't.  When you have the Pats in you division, it means you effectively start the season 0-2, because almost ANY TEAM in the league will go 0-2 against the Pats if they have to play them twice.  I don't think any of the three has beaten the Pats twice in a season, and all three usually get swept.   Since you start 0-2, it means to get 10 wins you have to go 10-4 against the rest of the league, and that's really hard to do.   So it isn't surprising that the AFCE hasn't had many teams other than the Pats winning 10 games.   

 

It's true, as someone said, that the Bills Dolphins and Jets haven't acquired good QBs for a decade.   But it's also true they haven't had good continuity in the front office and the HC position.  Why?   A lot of reasons, but one of them is that it's hard to win 10 games if you're in the Pats' division, and if you can't win 10 games, you don't keep your GM or HC job very long.   It's very much a chicken or the egg thing.   Only one McVay has come along in the last 10 years, and he happened not to take a job in the AFCE.   Almost every other new coach in the league over the last 10 years wouldn't have done any better playing the Pats twice a season.  

 

The Pats beat EVERYBODY, and it's a huge disadvantage to play them twice a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

How would the Bills do without those four games against divisions Twinkies Jets and Fish?

 

whst if they had to face REAL opponents for 2 or 3 of these games 

I don't know why it is that everyone misperceives the AFC East.   The Jets and Dolphins were .500 teams against the rest of the league over the past 15 seasons, putting aside their games against the Pats.  All three teams have been regularly in the middle of the pack in the league.   So the Bills didn't fatten their record against the Jets and phins.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know why it is that everyone misperceives the AFC East.   The Jets and Dolphins were .500 teams against the rest of the league over the past 15 seasons, putting aside their games against the Pats.  All three teams have been regularly in the middle of the pack in the league.   So the Bills didn't fatten their record against the Jets and phins.   

 

10-6 is barely above mediocrity in most NFL seasons

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This arguments in this thread should have stopped as soon as someone pointed out that NE wins pretty much at the same rate against EVERY team in the NFL.....so unless we make them play 16 games vs the Broncos, all IN Denver......NE would be the NE we know and hate.....

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

I've said this before, the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have been the primary enablers of the Patriots.  Pats usually have only about 3-4 significant games a year against other good teams. 

So 6 AFC east games, and then about 10 other games of which 6 of those are primarily against non playoff teams.  The fact the Pats can bank 5 AFC wins a year and able to skip the wildcard week and get at least 1 home game most years has been a tremendous advantage for them.   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dakrider said:

I've said this before, the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have been the primary enablers of the Patriots.  Pats usually have only about 3-4 significant games a year against other good teams. 

So 6 AFC east games, and then about 10 other games of which 6 of those are primarily against non playoff teams.  The fact the Pats can bank 5 AFC wins a year and able to skip the wildcard week and get at least 1 home game most years has been a tremendous advantage for them.   
 

 

 

So then explain why the Pats win percentage in the regular season against the rest of the NFL is nearly identical to the AFC east record?  If the Jets Bills, and Dolphins are the enablers - why does the AFC north have a lower win percentage against NE than the AFC east teams?

 

The facts are that outside of Denver in the AFC everyone is around 0.300 as a winning percentage against NE or worse.  Miami actually has the next best record in the AFC with 11 wins in 33 games versus Brady.  The Worst teams are the Bills, Cleveland, Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Houston with a winning percentage of around 10%.  

 

The truth is NE beats everybody - it does not matter what division or where the game is played.  You move NE to the AFC north and nothing changes - AFC south same domination. AFC west if they replace Denver - the winning percentage is nearly identical to what the AFC east sees.  Denver with a 6-7 record versus Brady in the Regular season and 3-1 in the playoffs for and overall record of 9-8 and are the only AFC team not to be Brady’s female dog.

 

Logically your argument would make sense if the Pats struggled against the rest of the AFC, but were getting home field throughout because of the AFC east teams, but they are averaging 13 wins with Brady so on average they are going 5-1 (0.833) versus the AFC east and 8-2  (0.800) versus the rest of the NFL and that is with them playing two additional AFC teams that were top seeds the year before.

 

 

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

15 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

10-6 is barely above mediocrity in most NFL seasons

 

 

 

 

That's correct.  7-9 to 9-7 are all the same, all mediocre.  10-6 and 6-10 barely above and below.  11-5 and 5-11 are when you can say a team is actually good or actually bad.  

 

My point is that when you play the Pats twice in the season, 10-6 is difficult to achieve.  10-6 for the Jets, phins and Bills is like 11-5 in any other division, because you start every season with two more or less automatic losses.  It's as though those teams are looking at going 10-4 just to get to barely above mediocre, and 11-3 to be actually good.   Going 11-3 against any NFL schedule is pretty difficult.   That's 7-0 at home and 4-3 on the road.   You gotta be good to do that.  

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...