Jump to content
Buffalo03

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Here are some facts for you to consider:  Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams.   Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league.  And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season.  

 

What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE.  

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Augie said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   😋

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the patriota get 2 easy games against NY and buffalo every year. And1 against miami. Miami is the only team in afc east that can beat NE at least 1x on a regular basis. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine IF the AFCE consisted of - Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Browns.

 

How long do you think our drought would have lasted?

 

How many playoffs would we have been in?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Augie said:

 

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

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

 

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.

Baltimore? How you figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the Bills don't win the AFC East is because of the Paytoilets.  

The reason the Bills have only been to the playoffs as a wildcard once since 2001 is because of the Bills.

Share this post


Link to post
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

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...