|
Post by lowfbiq on Dec 9, 2017 1:06:52 GMT -5
Using the playoffs as an example in this argument is truly foolish when if your division sucks you can have a team make the playoffs with a losing record.
Someone looked up the winning percentage in response to CC's comments and I believe "3" divisions out of the "8" had a slightly higher winning percentage as a division than the AFC East over a 10 year period. SO the AFC EAST had a higher winning percentage over a 10 year period than 5 of the other divisions in the NFL.
The Patriots have been dominant for 2 decades which scews that for the % for the rest of the AFC East division.
Also before someone cries that it is because the AFC East team are so bad why the Pats are so dominant. The Pats winning percentage is as high or "higher" against the field, "outside" the AFC East but those teams only face the Patriots once in a season which helps their winning percentage.
If people do not understand these facts I question how much they understand the game fully or really understand perception vs reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 1:26:48 GMT -5
You can't really compare the AFC East to other divisions by playoff appearances. In most of these years the final playoff seeds are being decided by a single game or a tie-breaker.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 1:27:17 GMT -5
Using the playoffs as an example in this argument is truly foolish when if your division sucks you can have a team make the playoffs with a losing record. Someone looked up the winning percentage in response to CC's comments and I believe "3" divisions out of the "8" had a slightly higher winning percentage as a division than the AFC East over a 10 year period. SO the AFC EAST had a higher winning percentage over a 10 year period than 5 of the other divisions in the NFL. The Patriots have been dominant for 2 decades which scews that for the % for the rest of the AFC East division. Also before someone cries that it is because the AFC East team are so bad why the Pats are so dominant. The Pats winning percentage is as high or "higher" against the field, "outside" the AFC East but those teams only face the Patriots once in a season which helps their winning percentage. If people do not understand these facts I question how much they understand the game fully or really understand perception vs reality. Yet those teams have to face each other 6 times in a competitive division each season. Of corse you expect the winning % to show that... they are in a tougher division playing better teams. My gosh, you people can’t accept the fact the Pats play in a weak division. Not only can you see this just watching the games every year but the numbers I posted prove it. And yes, you can most certainly use the playoffs to prove it. The best teams generally make the playoffs, don’t they? Amazing how butt hurt people get when something negative is said about the Patriots. And the lengths you go to try to spin it differently. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by lowfbiq on Dec 9, 2017 1:30:52 GMT -5
Using the playoffs as an example in this argument is truly foolish when if your division sucks you can have a team make the playoffs with a losing record. Someone looked up the winning percentage in response to CC's comments and I believe "3" divisions out of the "8" had a slightly higher winning percentage as a division than the AFC East over a 10 year period. SO the AFC EAST had a higher winning percentage over a 10 year period than 5 of the other divisions in the NFL. The Patriots have been dominant for 2 decades which scews that for the % for the rest of the AFC East division. Also before someone cries that it is because the AFC East team are so bad why the Pats are so dominant. The Pats winning percentage is as high or "higher" against the field, "outside" the AFC East but those teams only face the Patriots once in a season which helps their winning percentage. If people do not understand these facts I question how much they understand the game fully or really understand perception vs reality. Yet those teams have to face each other 6 times in a competitive division each season. Of corse you expect the winning % to show that... they are in a tougher division playing better teams. My gosh, you people can’t accept the fact the Pats play in a weak division. Not only can you see this just watching the games every year but the numbers I posted prove it. And yes, you can most certainly use the playoffs to prove it. The best teams generally make the playoffs, don’t they? Amazing how butt hurt people get when something negative is said about the Patriots. And the lengths you go to try to spin it differently. Unbelievable. how do you base how good a team is? Wins and losses? Yes of no?
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 1:34:30 GMT -5
If you want to compare the AFC East to other divisions you must total the non-division winner playoff appearances. You can't compare the other teams in our division against the teams in other divisions that didn't have to play the winningest team in football over the last decade and a half twice a year each. each team only plays them twice each season... yet they still can’t make the playoffs. The Packers have made it to the playoffs 9 times in the last 10 years (same as the Pats), yet the rest of the NFC NORTH has made the playoffs 8 times... that’s double the amount of times the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have made it. Look at the AFC NORTH... the Steelers have made the playoffs 2 times less than the Patriots in the past 10 years yet the rest of the division has made the playoffs 12 times. Yeah, 12 times. Those two examples alone debunks your statement.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 1:38:10 GMT -5
Yet those teams have to face each other 6 times in a competitive division each season. Of corse you expect the winning % to show that... they are in a tougher division playing better teams. My gosh, you people can’t accept the fact the Pats play in a weak division. Not only can you see this just watching the games every year but the numbers I posted prove it. And yes, you can most certainly use the playoffs to prove it. The best teams generally make the playoffs, don’t they? Amazing how butt hurt people get when something negative is said about the Patriots. And the lengths you go to try to spin it differently. Unbelievable. how do you base how good a team is? Wins and losses? Yes of no? Unbelievable!! Read Babes comment then read my response to him, maybe you can grasp the concept after that. Maybe not, but I have faith that you can do it!!
|
|
|
Post by coolade on Dec 9, 2017 1:46:42 GMT -5
This thread reminds me of a very old comic strip from The Far Side. The strip pictured two emaciated prisoners who were hanging by their shackled wrists, in a dungeon. One told the other he was there for some gruesome crime and then asked the other what he was in there for. The other said "I was misquoted" Everybody is so upset with Cowherd about things he did not actually say - i.e., things that the NESN writer said Cowherd said. If one reads carefully, and makes a distinction between what Cowherd sad and what the writer said... one would find that "four lucky breaks" are words Cowherd did not use... those were words the NESN writer used to add more color to his description of what Cowherd said. I happen to have watched the Cowherd segment . And what I bolded above was almost exactly what Cowherd was saying. He was saying this dynasty will never happen again. Paraphrasing, he said you're not going to see the one of the greatest coaches ever (Cowherd has called BB the GOAT on occasion) whose long-run success is largely due to an undying desire to win the SB, which in turn is rooted in a huge chip on the shoulder) working with the one of the greatest QBs ever (Cowherd has also called TB GOAT on occasion). Just those two converging is not going to happen again. The two other factors he mentioned were really more like him trying to add more bullets to what his premise, but were minor compared to the two GOATs converging in one team at the same time. Cowherd only mentioned the word luck in relation to NE ending up drafting TB after passing on him 5 times. We all know Babe sees TB's drafting the same way. The NESN writer also wrote that "According to Cowherd, the success of the Patriots had nothing to do with intelligence..." Cowherd wasn't saying that. Cowherd is a big fan of very smart people. And pretty often, he refers to BB and TB as the most brilliant coaching and QB minds ever. I agree, the article is a click bait act. It just was not Cowherd's. Exactly, take out the word " lucky" and its a lot different outcome. Writer smart ... Gets lucky using "lucky"... Lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 1:49:38 GMT -5
The other 3 teams in the division have averaged about the 23rd most wins among the league over the last 10 seasons. (average of the placing of the other 3 teams) www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/every-nfl-teams-10-year-record-ranked-32-1-010417When you consider 12% of their games are against the winningest team over that time, they are not too far removed from average competitiveness. Consider the second winnigest team's division, the Pack in the NFC North. The other 3 teams average around 22nd place on wins. Now consider the AFC North; they are about 18th place in wins other than the Steelers. The AFC East isn't the factor some would contend it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 1:51:58 GMT -5
If you want to compare the AFC East to other divisions you must total the non-division winner playoff appearances. You can't compare the other teams in our division against the teams in other divisions that didn't have to play the winningest team in football over the last decade and a half twice a year each. each team only plays them twice each season... yet they still can’t make the playoffs. The Packers have made it to the playoffs 9 times in the last 10 years (same as the Pats), yet the rest of the NFC NORTH has made the playoffs 8 times... that’s double the amount of times the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have made it. Look at the AFC NORTH... the Steelers have made the playoffs 2 times less than the Patriots in the past 10 years yet the rest of the division has made the playoffs 12 times. Yeah, 12 times. Those two examples alone debunks your statement. I changed that post. Really, playoff appearances are not a determining factor as the last few teams get in by very small margins.
|
|
|
Post by coolade on Dec 9, 2017 1:53:06 GMT -5
The other 3 teams in the division have averaged about the 23rd most wins among the league over the last 10 seasons. (average of the placing of the other 3 teams) www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/every-nfl-teams-10-year-record-ranked-32-1-010417When you consider 12% of their games are against the winningest team over that time, they are not too far removed from average competitiveness. Consider the second winnigest team's division, the Pack in the NFC North. The other 3 teams average around 22nd place on wins. Now consider the AFC North; they are about 18th place in wins other than the Steelers. The AFC East isn't the factor some would contend it is. Hey babe... Pull up your "lucky" thread from last year. It would be an interesting comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 1:55:11 GMT -5
The other 3 teams in the division have averaged about the 23rd most wins among the league over the last 10 seasons. (average of the placing of the other 3 teams) www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/every-nfl-teams-10-year-record-ranked-32-1-010417When you consider 12% of their games are against the winningest team over that time, they are not too far removed from average competitiveness. Consider the second winnigest team's division, the Pack in the NFC North. The other 3 teams average around 22nd place on wins. Now consider the AFC North; they are about 18th place in wins other than the Steelers. The AFC East isn't the factor some would contend it is. Hey babe... Pull up your "lucky" thread from last year. It would be an interesting comparison. I have no idea where that is.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 1:56:12 GMT -5
each team only plays them twice each season... yet they still can’t make the playoffs. The Packers have made it to the playoffs 9 times in the last 10 years (same as the Pats), yet the rest of the NFC NORTH has made the playoffs 8 times... that’s double the amount of times the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have made it. Look at the AFC NORTH... the Steelers have made the playoffs 2 times less than the Patriots in the past 10 years yet the rest of the division has made the playoffs 12 times. Yeah, 12 times. Those two examples alone debunks your statement. I changed that post. Really, playoff appearances are not a determining factor as the last few teams get in by very small margins. 8 times to 4 times, 12 times to 4 times... think about that for a minute. That is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by lowfbiq on Dec 9, 2017 2:00:53 GMT -5
If you want to compare the AFC East to other divisions you must total the non-division winner playoff appearances. You can't compare the other teams in our division against the teams in other divisions that didn't have to play the winningest team in football over the last decade and a half twice a year each. each team only plays them twice each season... yet they still can’t make the playoffs. The Packers have made it to the playoffs 9 times in the last 10 years, yet the rest of the NFC NORTH has made the playoffs 8 times... that’s double the amount of times the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have made it. Look at the AFC NORTH... the Steelers have made the playoffs 2 times less than the Patriots in the past 10 years yet the rest of the division has made the playoffs 12 times. Yeah, 12 times. Those two examples alone debunks your statement. I don't remember which 3 divisions had the slightly higher winning percentage than the AFC east but lets just say, for arguments sake that two of the ones that were are the steelers division and the packers division, what is your point? In the NFC north example, where they had 8 playoff appearances rather than the AFC east's 4, how many times did that division have two good teams(or one great team, 1 good team) and two awful dreadful teams? As opposed to one great team and 3 evenly matched decent teams that were between 6-9 wins but not enough to get one of the 2 wild card spots each year when the teams that get into the wild card often have divisions where teams 3 and 4 have 4 or fewer wins. Which by the way is the case with every division that usually has a team get a wild card. The AFC North would be the one division where I think perception, I did not look up facts, seems to sometimes have a possibility to get two teams in as wild cards but that is because they have a team that has given a goose-egg for multiple years. That is just how it works. Again, you go by the winning percentage of the division as a whole. This season is currently a perfect microcosm of this very topic. I believe the AFC East currently has the 2nd best winning percentage in football this season, behind the NFC south. But once again not a team other than the Patriots currently making the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by lowfbiq on Dec 9, 2017 2:04:43 GMT -5
how do you base how good a team is? Wins and losses? Yes of no? Unbelievable!! Read Babes comment then read my response to him, maybe you can grasp the concept after that. Maybe not, but I have faith that you can do it!! I've read your comments but you refused to answer a simple yes or no question. If your answer is no then ok fine we have nothing to discuss really because I say yes. But you are welcome to think your record or number of wins does not speak to the strength of your division, I just believe it does. If you answer yes then you are wrong. It's that simple. Winning percentage as a division is what matters in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 2:07:22 GMT -5
I changed that post. Really, playoff appearances are not a determining factor as the last few teams get in by very small margins. 8 times to 4 times, 12 times to 4 times... think about that for a minute. That is ridiculous. Not really ridiculous. The last few playoff teams get in by the skin of their teeth on the last day. Look at the AFC North in 2014. Three teams made the playoffs from that division! The two non-division winners had 10 wins. The Bills won 9 that season and the Fish 8. And none of the AFC North teams had to play the Pats twice that season. Three other teams were 9-7 that year. The playoffs are not a great indicator. It's a flawed stat when you consider the closeness of who those final teams end up being. I think your analysis of the data is right on the money. I just think the data you're using is not optimal to the final analysis.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 2:11:32 GMT -5
Unbelievable!! Read Babes comment then read my response to him, maybe you can grasp the concept after that. Maybe not, but I have faith that you can do it!! I've read your comments but you refused to answer a simple yes or no question. If your answer is no then ok fine we have nothing to discuss really because I say yes. But you are welcome to think your record or number of wins does not speak to the strength of your division, I just believe it does. If you answer yes then you are wrong. It's that simple. Winning percentage as a division is what matters in my opinion. That's your opinion... yet my opinion says you are wrong. And I have facts to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 2:23:19 GMT -5
8 times to 4 times, 12 times to 4 times... think about that for a minute. That is ridiculous. Not really ridiculous. The last few playoff teams get in by the skin of their teeth on the last day. Look at the AFC North in 2014. Three teams made the playoffs from that division! The two non-division winners had 10 wins. The Bills won 9 that season and the Fish 8. And none of the AFC North teams had to play the Pats twice that season. Three other teams were 9-7 that year. The playoffs are not a great indicator. It's a flawed stat when you consider the closeness of who those final teams end up being. I think your analysis of the data is right on the money. I just think the data you're using is not optimal to the final analysis. The AFC North didn't have to play the Pats twice... big deal.. they had to play each other twice... Steelers 11-5 (Pats 12-4) Bengals 10-5 (Bills 9-7) Ravens 10-6 (Dolphins 8-8) Browns 7-9 (Jets 4-12) This pretty much proves my point. AFC North was a much better division, Steelers, Bengals and Ravens all made the playoffs, as they should have... The Bills, dolphins and Jets all missed the playoffs, as they should have. Thanks for helping prove my point. If only people could be objective, most of this stuff can be proven just by watching the season. Too many people here get too defensive so sadly that can never happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 4:54:17 GMT -5
Not really ridiculous. The last few playoff teams get in by the skin of their teeth on the last day. Look at the AFC North in 2014. Three teams made the playoffs from that division! The two non-division winners had 10 wins. The Bills won 9 that season and the Fish 8. And none of the AFC North teams had to play the Pats twice that season. Three other teams were 9-7 that year. The playoffs are not a great indicator. It's a flawed stat when you consider the closeness of who those final teams end up being. I think your analysis of the data is right on the money. I just think the data you're using is not optimal to the final analysis. The AFC North didn't have to play the Pats twice... big deal.. they had to play each other twice... Steelers 11-5 (Pats 12-4) Bengals 10-5 (Bills 9-7) Ravens 10-6 (Dolphins 8-8) Browns 7-9 (Jets 4-12) This pretty much proves my point. AFC North was a much better division, Steelers, Bengals and Ravens all made the playoffs, as they should have... The Bills, dolphins and Jets all missed the playoffs, as they should have. Thanks for helping prove my point. If only people could be objective, most of this stuff can be proven just by watching the season. Too many people here get too defensive so sadly that can never happen. Taking the perhaps most stark example (2014) of what you are contending, it still shows two of the other three teams in the division as being in the mix until the last week or two for those playoff spots. Plus three other teams can say the same thing. That's 5 teams that could have made the playoffs other than those two AFCN teams. Any way you slice it, even using your best example, it's difficult to say that division was much more competitive. The other 3 teams in the east had 21 wins and the other 3 teams in the north had 27. And the AFCN played the NFCS that year where that division didn't have ONE team end up with a winning record! Talk about a cake schedule. Objectively speaking, there is precious little evidence to say the AFCE is much worse than any other division over that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 5:08:14 GMT -5
Collectively the other three teams in our division have averaged about a 1-4 W/L ratio against the Pats over the last 8 years. That's a huge disadvantage for them compared to the rest of the league. They are mostly competitive against the league but are dragged down by playing in the same division as the perennially winning Pats.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 6:58:22 GMT -5
The AFC North didn't have to play the Pats twice... big deal.. they had to play each other twice... Steelers 11-5 (Pats 12-4) Bengals 10-5 (Bills 9-7) Ravens 10-6 (Dolphins 8-8) Browns 7-9 (Jets 4-12) This pretty much proves my point. AFC North was a much better division, Steelers, Bengals and Ravens all made the playoffs, as they should have... The Bills, dolphins and Jets all missed the playoffs, as they should have. Thanks for helping prove my point. If only people could be objective, most of this stuff can be proven just by watching the season. Too many people here get too defensive so sadly that can never happen. Taking the perhaps most stark example (2014) of what you are contending, it still shows two of the other three teams in the division as being in the mix until the last week or two for those playoff spots. Plus three other teams can say the same thing. That's 5 teams that could have made the playoffs other than those two AFCN teams. Any way you slice it, even using your best example, it's difficult to say that division was much more competitive. The other 3 teams in the east had 21 wins and the other 3 teams in the north had 27. And the AFCN played the NFCS that year where that division didn't have ONE team end up with a winning record! Talk about a cake schedule. Objectively speaking, there is precious little evidence to say the AFCE is much worse than any other division over that time. The eye test alone says it but what I posted backs it up. Just think about it... the Jets, Bills and Dolphins have only been to the playoffs 4 times over the past 10 seasons... that tells you all you need to know... and it’s not because they have to play the Pats 2 times each season, I already proved that “theory” wrong... talk about a cake schedule... the Pats have 6 games a season vs 3 teams who have made the playoffs 4 times... combined... (the Bills haven’t been to the playoffs forever) Winning record?? The bills just barely had a winning record, the jets and Dolphins didn’t. Did you happen to look who the NFCS played that year... compare the Bills schedule to the Panthers schedule.... the NFCS has a much more difficult schedule. Go back again and study the 10 year chart I posted, it’s mind blowing when you take it in and understand what it’s saying. You, as well as others continue to make arguments against it but they all get shot down by its data. Allow me to let you in on a little secret... the team with the best record doesn’t always win the SB but usually the best team wins the SB. You win SBs by getting to the playoffs... the Jets, Dolphins and Bills only been to the playoffs 4 times in 10 years combined. Really, just mind blowing what a weak division it is.
|
|
|
Post by TFB12 on Dec 9, 2017 7:01:02 GMT -5
Collectively the other three teams in our division have averaged about a 1-4 W/L ratio against the Pats over the last 8 years. That's a huge disadvantage for them compared to the rest of the league. They are mostly competitive against the league but are dragged down by playing in the same division as the perennially winning Pats. Shot this one down already Babe. Go see the discussion we had concerning the Steelers and AFCN, and Packers and NFCN.
|
|
|
Post by Shelly on Dec 9, 2017 8:04:02 GMT -5
Again. Those numbers are meaningless other than showing how consistently great the Pats are. The REAL numbers are as I produced which you so very conveniently ignore. Which division is the tougher division between those two in bold? Hard to say. If the average of division winners in all non-division games is only 6-4, then the AFC North is slightly (and I mean slightly) tougher. If, as I believe, the average of division winners in non-division games is more like 7-3, then it is the AFC East -- and by a significant margin. I am still waiting for you to do the actual numbers. Note, by tougher division I mean the competition for the division winner. That is the #2, #3 and #4 teams -- because that is all that is important. If you were to include division winners, which you shouldn't, then the AFC East is by far and away the hardest division. As for switching the Pats and Cowboys? The Pats would be in an easier division regardless of whether it was 7-3 or 6-4. Ditto for the Cowboys. They would be playing in a tougher division. That is what the cold, hard numbers say. Look at my posts and TRY to understand. I know it is hard for you to admit you are wrong, and you are so extremely stubborn (as we saw with that ridiculous driver's seat statement that persisted for weeks on end), but do us all a favor and at least try to comprehend the significance of those numbers. They are there for you in black and white. Unbelievable. Do you honestly and seriously believe the shit you spew Sheldon? Those numbers are not meaningless. Are you really going to make that claim? Every other division in the NFL has more teams going to the playoffs than the AFC EAST. The Jets, Bills and Dolphins have been to the playoffs 4 times in the last 10 years! That’s a weak F’ing division. Those numbers tell the story, Sheldon. You can continue to act dumb and act like you don’t understand what the hell is going on but even I think your smarter than that. I continue to feed you L’s here, you look like a complete knuckle head. You are so stubborn you can’t even admit your wrong when it’s clear as day!! Those numbers don’t mean anything... lmao! They mean everything, Sheldon. Be a man and accept that you are wrong here. OK, I have had enough. You are not only willing to admit you are completely wrong, but you are bordering on insulting. You need to give yourself a warning, Mr. Admin. The reason that the AFC East has fewer playoff teams is because the Pats are so freakin' dominant. They start of with 0-2 each season. Tougher to make the playoffs when the winner goes 14-2 while other winners are 10-6. Nevermind. The ONLY numbers of significance that PROVE you wrong are the ones I presented three times -- and which you ignore. I am done responding your nonsense. You got your wish. I will leave it to other posters to point out to you that those numbers mean everything and PROVE just how strong the REST OF THE AFC East is.
|
|
|
Post by agcsbill on Dec 9, 2017 8:38:28 GMT -5
I loved the last paragraph of that link: ========== So here’s your quick rebuttal. Since 2001, the Patriots are just as good in their division as out of it – they’re dominant in both. They’re the only team with a winning record against playoff teams – and they’re over .600. It’s not that the rest of the AFC East isn’t good, it’s that the Patriots are the most dominant team in NFL history. It’s not that they have the easiest route, it’s that they make that route look easy. And you’ll never hear them complain about it, like Earl Thomas. ========== So much for "everybody knows the AFC East is a weak division" and for anyone ignorant enough to repeat that crap. (You know who you are). Lmao. www.google.com/amp/s/www.thephinsider.com/platform/amp/2017/8/24/16195240/pats-success-has-been-helped-by-weak-divisionHere’s another one... with numbers Sheldon, more numbers for you... The AFC East (2002-2013) - The weakest division in the NFL during the BB Era? Much has been made during the Patriots' tremendous run since BB took over the reigns over how weak the AFC East has been over that time. It is thought by many detractors of the Patriots that they've run up big records against these weak opponents, and that has propelled them into the playoffs year after year. But is it true? Is it really the case that the AFC East has been the NFL's weakest division? I will only use the years since the NFL went to the 8-division format, which means looking at 2002-2013. Of course this leaves out one of the Pats' Super Bowl seasons, but oh well. It's just easier this way. So yes, the AFC East has been one of the weaker divisions in the NFL during this time frame, which has undoubtedly benefited the Patriots.But, is it the Patriots' fault? NO! The Patriots can only play the teams on their schedule, it is not like they set up their own schedule, which is effectively a "first place" schedule year after year. Additionally, the Patriots are not responsible for how the other teams in the AFCE look like. Each team has the same opportunity to draft and sign players to create their team. For some reason the Pats do a better job year after year and people are very jealous of that and need to poke holes in it using the "weak AFCE" rationale.
|
|
|
Post by agcsbill on Dec 9, 2017 8:44:27 GMT -5
Grest idea, let's conveniently remove the best team in the division, but only from the AFCE, then compare it to alk the other divisions. On what planet does that make sense? Planet Hater, I suppose. It's completely bogus to remove the first place team, in this case the Patriots, from this analysis... unless you remove the first place team from every division. There's no division in football that consistently has even two above average teams, year in and year out. The Pats have been a constant, the Steelers have been mostly constant with a few down years, the Colts had a nice run. That's pretty much it. The other three teams in the AFCE are about on par with the vast majority of the NFL. Up, down, up, down. Parityville. That makes WAY too much sense! You realize this will simply poke huge holes in all the detractors rationale why the Pats are so good. It HAS to be because they are in a weak division. Forget the fact they win as many games outside the division, too! It would be a huge endeavor to dig that deep and may make for some very eye opening results.
|
|
|
Post by agcsbill on Dec 9, 2017 9:12:20 GMT -5
Collectively the other three teams in our division have averaged about a 1-4 W/L ratio against the Pats over the last 8 years. That's a huge disadvantage for them compared to the rest of the league. They are mostly competitive against the league but are dragged down by playing in the same division as the perennially winning Pats. Basically, what is said above implies, if not for the loses against the Pats year after year, the rest of the teams in the AFCE are a decent bunch. What skews all of this is how amazingly consistent the Patriots have been over this run compared to other "winning" teams in the other divisions. The Pats have really not had a down year at all with the closest being the 9 - 7 2002 season after their first SB win. When you look at the rest of the NFL, I think most teams have had a sub .500 record at least once if not a couple times while the Pats haven't had one since 2000.
|
|