Heh. You used my cite. The aggregate wins of a division is the best barometer because inter-division games all result in the same .500 record, so it doesn’t matter if the Patsies beat up on the Bills/Jets/Dolphins. As I pointed out, the top three divisions are in a statistical tie when it comes to aggregate wins. Given that, the 6 conference titles by the AFCE make it the best.
It matters a great deal.
When a team goes into each season with a guaranteed 5 or 6 wins in the bag, all they have to do is win 4 (or 5) out of 10 to make the playoffs. That division has been a joke for the entire Pats run. That isn’t NE’s fault, but let’s not pretend they have the same mountain to climb as a team from a division like the AFCN. Those teams beat the hell out of each other just to get into the playoffs. The Patriots have rarely broken a sweat.
Those 6 wins help in tie-breakers also. A division champion with more in-conference victories will get the first week bye. I can’t remember the Pats ever winning a SB by going the hard way (playing the wild card weekend).
The Pats have been good. But they have benefitted from a flat-out pathetic division.
I think you’re missing the point that Deeg is making. While the Patriots wins against the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills certainly do matter in terms of making the playoffs, they do not matter when calculating the total number of wins for a given division.
So every year, every division will get 12 wins automatically from playing one another. Doesn’t matter how good or bad the individual teams within that division are, nor how dominant one team might be - it’ll always be 12 (discounting the effect of ties). This means that a division’s total win count is a good measure of how strong the division is, since differences from division to division will be entirely a function of how well that division’s teams perform against teams from other divisions.
So Deeg’s cite is saying that even though the AFC East is widely perceived as weak (and therefore the Pats accomplishments somewhat less impressive), this may not actually be true. Based on those numbers, when playing against teams outside their division the AFC East as a whole has been more successful than any division other than the AFC North - suggesting that the division as a whole is tougher than it appears. Yes, the individual records of the teams in there might not always look impressive, but part of that is that they have to play the Patriots every year!
I’m not sure “The Patriots” have anything to do with it. I believe pretty much all of the Patriot’s success is attributable to Tom Brady. . . without Tom Brady, Belichick’s nothing.
Nobody goes into a season with 5 or 6 guaranteed wins. I get your point, but the counter-argument is that the Patriots consistently beat teams that they’re expected to beat, which can’t be said of the rest of the league - at least not to the degree that the Patriots do it. Even so, the Jets or the Dolphins, on sheer intensity, are occasionally able to pull off the upset. But generally, when inferior teams play the Patriots, there’s a really, really good chance they’re going to lose. They’re extremely well-coached and are good about not assuming a 3-10 team can’t beat them in week 14 or 15, because Belichick and Brady know too well that they can.
I can see the first argument as being relevant, though it is one of somewhat questionable truth given that the Patriots are 22-9 in the playoffs during the Brady era, which means they have a .710 winning percentage in the games that most matter against teams that are, by definition, the best teams in the league. That mark stands up against any dynasty.
The second point baffles me, though. At least a weak division helps just the team we’re talking about. But the rules about passing are the same for every team. They affect everyone from Tom Brady to Andy Dalton to Johnny Manziel. How can that be held against their record of success?
That’s unfair. Brady is more important than Belichick, but Belichick’s defenses have always been good and Brady isn’t winning without that. Belichick was an important piece of Parcells success too, so he’s no one trick pony.
Belichick’s certainly not perfect, I think some of his zealousness to trade/cut a player early instead of late has hurt the Pats almost as often as it’s helped. He’s frequently failed to get Brady enough weapons and it’s rarely because of cap issues.
I’m with Omniscient; I’d rather have Brady than Belichick but I don’t think the Pats win 4 SBs with any other coach. Plus you have to admire the job that Belichick did with Matt Cassel at QB.
I don’t believe he was comparing Brady to current qbs, he was comparing him to the greats, Montana, Bradshaw, Starr, etc. Qbs before the turn of the century had to deal with more hits, less opportunities to pass, etc. As far as the cheating bs, every team cheats anyway they can, so to say thenough cheating gave them any advantage is absurd.
That’s nonsense. The Patriots get busted in these kinds of marginal cheating scandals more than everyone else. Either their culture is more permissive about walking right up to the line to the line where they sometimes cross over it, or they’re worse at it leading to being caught more frequently. My buck’s on the former.
Then show us so. The other 31 teams.
You guys are aware it isn’t actually illegal to tape practices, they just have to do it in designated areas, and as far as deflating the footballs, have you noticed Goodell measured balls all last year? You’re never gonna hear or see the results because ever team skews it someway. Every team cheats, look at Casper and Rice putting sticker on their hands, or how about Bradshaw staying I the game after getting a concussion. Every team cheats, it professional ball, if you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough.
On first glance I do find the weak division argument compelling, but I don’t put any stock in the notion that they’d somehow struggle if they played in the AFC North. Tom Brady as a starter is 21-5 vs the AFC North:
5-1 vs the Ravens
5-1 vs the Bengals
5-1 vs the Browns
6-2 vs the Steelers
Without Tom Brady, Belichick coached the Patriots to an 11-5 record (and a wildcard berth) with backup QB Matt Cassell.
Further, Tom Brady does better against the AFC North than the AFC East:
21-5 (81%) vs the AFC North
5-1 (83%) vs the Ravens
5-1 (83%) vs the Bengals
5-1 (83%) vs the Browns
6-2 (75%) vs the Steelers
65-19 (77%) vs the AFC East
25-3 (89%) vs the Bills
21-7 (75%) vs the Jets
19-9 (68%) vs the Dolphins
Nope, they didn’t get the wildcard berth that year. They were edged out in a tiebreaker by the Ravens.
Ouch. Sucks to go 11-5 and miss the playoffs, especially when the scrubby AFC West was won with a record of 8-8.
That’s not true. The Jets were busted a few years ago for messing with the kicking balls (which almost certainly had a bigger impact on the game than anything Brady might have done) and then fined for tampering with Darrelle Revis. Indianapolis (I think) was busted for illegally texting the head coach during the game. Minnesota was caught warming their footballs during a game. A couple of teams have been sanctioned for piping in music. Aaron Rogers admitted to over-inflating the footballs.
Then of course there was Jerry Rice who admitted to using illegal Stick-Em throughout his career (and then proving he was a putz by blasting the Patriots).
This site is a pretty comprehensive team-by-team refutation of that claim. Well worth a browse.
Since 1980, only ten NFL teams have been docked a draft pick for breaking NFL rules. Only one team has had that happen on three diferent occassions. Only one team has forfeited a first round draft pick for transgressions. And it happened twice to them.
And all NFL Commissioners have been perfectly wise and omniscient too.
Interesting change of approach there for you, Counselor - they’ve been penalized so they *must *have been guilty, and those that haven’t been similarly penalized mustn’t have been guilty. Is that it now?
The facts say otherwise, as you by now know well.