Jump to content
Buffalo03

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bills will be one if the most beloved teams in the nation if we can finally step up and end this reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother with useless conjecture? Seriously, what is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Why bother with useless conjecture? Seriously, what is the point?

Why bother with anything at all?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never know, but they have been spanking the rest of the league pretty well too.

 

If it comes up for a vote, the NFL has my vote to move them to the NFC West, we will take Arizona straight up.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have loved to change with the Rams

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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....

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...