I don't remember the source, but I heard on sports radio that the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins are .500 teams if you take away their games against the Patriots. The league average is .500 of course so maybe it is the Patriots that make them suck.Bunk Moreland said:aggie-master said:He'd probably have a better record because Belichick would know them as opponents better.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
And they'd know the Pats better. Works both ways.
in the 17 years since we went to 4 divisions, here's the average wins per season for all teams in AFC North/East not counting NE:
Steelers: 175 wins/ 10.29 wins per year
Ravens: 154 wins/ 9.06 wins per year
Bengals: 133 wins/ 7.82 wins per year
Dolphins: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Jets: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Bills: 116 wins/ 6.82 wins per year
Browns: 83 wins: 4.88 wins per year
Other than the lowly browns, the 3 in the AFC North averaged more wins per year than the 3 non Patriots teams in the AFC East, 2 of them by a massive margin.
The Bengals/Ravens/Steelers have a combined 25 double digit win seasons over that period.
The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have a combined 7.
Again...they're still the greatest dynasty of all time. But they have been aided by incredibly consistent mediocrity from their division for a long, long time. But damn are they impressive.
Seriously? Patriots, again???
4,184 Views |
59 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Iowaggie
If KC had won the toss and gone and scored a TD, no one would be whining about the OT rules like they are today.otni said:
I can't help wondering what the outcome would have been if KC had won the OT coin toss.
No one had a problem with it until the Pats won..... again.
If the Chiefs D wasn't a complete embarrassment, maybe they could have done something to stop the Pats.
Subtract 2 wins from each AFC North team and add them to the AFC East teams and look at the numbers again. That is what it would look like if you swapped NE into the AFC North.Bunk Moreland said:aggie-master said:He'd probably have a better record because Belichick would know them as opponents better.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
And they'd know the Pats better. Works both ways.
in the 17 years since we went to 4 divisions, here's the average wins per season for all teams in AFC North/East not counting NE:
Steelers: 175 wins/ 10.29 wins per year
Ravens: 154 wins/ 9.06 wins per year
Bengals: 133 wins/ 7.82 wins per year
Dolphins: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Jets: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Bills: 116 wins/ 6.82 wins per year
Browns: 83 wins: 4.88 wins per year
Other than the lowly browns, the 3 in the AFC North averaged more wins per year than the 3 non Patriots teams in the AFC East, 2 of them by a massive margin.
The Bengals/Ravens/Steelers have a combined 25 double digit win seasons over that period.
The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have a combined 7.
Again...they're still the greatest dynasty of all time. But they have been aided by incredibly consistent mediocrity from their division for a long, long time. But damn are they impressive.
you are full of it.Quote:
f KC had won the toss and gone and scored a TD, no one would be whining about the OT rules like they are today.
people complain about the OT rules ALL THE TIME. Its not something new.
Quote:
Subtract 2 wins from each AFC North team and add them to the AFC East teams and look at the numbers again. That is what it would look like if you swapped NE into the AFC North.
It would definitely have an effect but this view is way too simplistic imo. No it wouldn't. That's way too simplistic. The Pats have beaten the Steelers/Ravens (& Bengals) more than the other way around, but it's not a transfer of 2 wins per team taken away. And that doesn't also mean the AFC East would magically get 2 wins more since NE was in a different division.
Take 1 win per team away or 1.25 on average per season and they still rank way above the AFC East. And transfer the Pats out for Pitt or Baltimore and 1 of those 2 teams likely dominates the AFC East, just not to the level that NE did.
There's definitely some co-dependence to the never before seen dominance of NE and the consistent mediocrity of the rest of the division. Fascinating discussion either way.
BMX Bandit said:you are full of it.Quote:
f KC had won the toss and gone and scored a TD, no one would be whining about the OT rules like they are today.
people complain about the OT rules ALL THE TIME. Its not something new.
It basically comes up every time a OT game is played in the NFL.
My solution(feel free to **** all over):
Regular season = college hybrid. Each team gets a possession. Start at the 25 and for each successive OT move it 10 yards back to begin.
Playoffs: 12 minute quarters. When the quarter is over if there's a winner there's a winner. If not we move to the next quarter.
Was the division weak? or did the Patriots just break it?Bunk Moreland said:Quote:
Subtract 2 wins from each AFC North team and add them to the AFC East teams and look at the numbers again. That is what it would look like if you swapped NE into the AFC North.
It would definitely have an effect but this view is way too simplistic imo. No it wouldn't. That's way too simplistic. The Pats have beaten the Steelers/Ravens (& Bengals) more than the other way around, but it's not a transfer of 2 wins per team taken away. And that doesn't also mean the AFC East would magically get 2 wins more since NE was in a different division.
Take 1 win per team away or 1.25 on average per season and they still rank way above the AFC East. And transfer the Pats out for Pitt or Baltimore and 1 of those 2 teams likely dominates the AFC East, just not to the level that NE did.
There's definitely some co-dependence to the never before seen dominance of NE and the consistent mediocrity of the rest of the division. Fascinating discussion either way.
In the pre Brady/Belichick era the Bills and Dolphins had been really good franchises with many notable successful seasons. In total Mia, Buff and NYJ have been to 10 superbowls, which is the same amount as the entire AFC North. Several years of NE domination basically neutered those franchises and have left them weak and broken as you see today. The teams in other divisions of the AFC get to focus on building the best possible team with the players they have; whereas, the teams in the AFC East have to build teams that are specifically capable of beating the Patriots. I think that causes massive psychological problems in an organization, similar to how the Texans were always chasing a team that could specifically beat Payton Manning.
Edit: AFC North actually has 12 total superbowl appearances...somehow I missed the Bungles.
NSIAP - since the rule change, the team that wins the toss wins 50% of the time. Seems to be just fine.
Haven't heard a peep about the way overtime played out in the Rams/Saints game.BMX Bandit said:you are full of it.Quote:
f KC had won the toss and gone and scored a TD, no one would be whining about the OT rules like they are today.
people complain about the OT rules ALL THE TIME. Its not something new.
i'm going to the game and at first i was disappointed the pats were in again, but now I think it's going to be pretty cool to see the best QB-coach combo of all time play in a super bowl.
Bunk Moreland said:aggie-master said:He'd probably have a better record because Belichick would know them as opponents better.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
And they'd know the Pats better. Works both ways.
in the 17 years since we went to 4 divisions, here's the average wins per season for all teams in AFC North/East not counting NE:
Steelers: 175 wins/ 10.29 wins per year
Ravens: 154 wins/ 9.06 wins per year
Bengals: 133 wins/ 7.82 wins per year
Dolphins: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Jets: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Bills: 116 wins/ 6.82 wins per year
Browns: 83 wins: 4.88 wins per year
Other than the lowly browns, the 3 in the AFC North averaged more wins per year than the 3 non Patriots teams in the AFC East, 2 of them by a massive margin.
The Bengals/Ravens/Steelers have a combined 25 double digit win seasons over that period.
The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have a combined 7.
Again...they're still the greatest dynasty of all time. But they have been aided by incredibly consistent mediocrity from their division for a long, long time. But damn are they impressive.
Sorry, but this is a flawed argument.
First of all, you are effectively comparing 1, 2, and 3 in one division with 2, 3 and 4 in another division. I'm pretty sure you could do this with any two divisions and find disparity.
Second, you are letting the teams in the AFC North count their wins versus the Browns and holding the losses to the Patriots against the AFC East.
A better comparison would be wins from 2-4 in each division with division games taken out.
Over the last 17 seasons, the AFC East (not counting the Pats) has averaged 13.8 wins per season against non divisional opponents. The AFC North 2-4 has averaged 13.6 wins per season against non divisional opponents over the same period. Across the league, only the NFC East has been better at 13.9. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Oh I know it's flawed. They're all flawed arguments. The AFC East has not had more than one team have a good run. The AFC North has had 2 teams both make runs, sometimes at the same time, and a 3rd that has shown up here and there.Quote:
Sorry, but this is a flawed argument.
First of all, you are effectively comparing 1, 2, and 3 in one division with 2, 3 and 4 in another division. I'm pretty sure you could do this with any two divisions and find disparity.
Second, you are letting the teams in the AFC North count their wins versus the Browns and holding the losses to the Patriots against the AFC East.
A better comparison would be wins from 2-4 in each division with division games taken out.
Over the last 17 seasons, the AFC East (not counting the Pats) has averaged 13.8 wins per season against non divisional opponents. The AFC North 2-4 has averaged 13.6 wins per season against non divisional opponents over the same period. Across the league, only the NFC East has been better at 13.9. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Let me put it more simply....I think if you put the Ravens in the AFC East instead of the Jets or Dolphins, the 17 year run isn't quite as excellent. It'd still likely be the best ever but there would be years they'd be challenged and lose the division or not get that 1st round bye as often as they have.
This right here.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
New England is Florida St of the 1990's. Awesome program, but one that greatly benefits from playing in a crap division.
That is not the patriots fault, and really does not diminish them at all.
The Bills, Dolphins and Jets suck almost every year.
You put the Patriots in a division with some semblance of competition and they would not be winning the division every single year.
That does not make any sense.aggie-master said:I don't remember the source, but I heard on sports radio that the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins are .500 teams if you take away their games against the Patriots. The league average is .500 of course so maybe it is the Patriots that make them suck.Bunk Moreland said:aggie-master said:He'd probably have a better record because Belichick would know them as opponents better.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
And they'd know the Pats better. Works both ways.
in the 17 years since we went to 4 divisions, here's the average wins per season for all teams in AFC North/East not counting NE:
Steelers: 175 wins/ 10.29 wins per year
Ravens: 154 wins/ 9.06 wins per year
Bengals: 133 wins/ 7.82 wins per year
Dolphins: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Jets: 122 wins/7.18 wins per year
Bills: 116 wins/ 6.82 wins per year
Browns: 83 wins: 4.88 wins per year
Other than the lowly browns, the 3 in the AFC North averaged more wins per year than the 3 non Patriots teams in the AFC East, 2 of them by a massive margin.
The Bengals/Ravens/Steelers have a combined 25 double digit win seasons over that period.
The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have a combined 7.
Again...they're still the greatest dynasty of all time. But they have been aided by incredibly consistent mediocrity from their division for a long, long time. But damn are they impressive.
When the Cowboys were the best team in the 1990's.....Philly, Washington and the New York Giants were all having 10 win seasons...some of them despite losing two games to the Cowboys.
It is easily possible for their to be multiple great teams in a division. It happens all the time
Buffalo, Miami and the Jets suck almost every year.
These teams sucking is a huge reason the Patriots win 11-13 games every single year.
Put the exact same Patriots in the NFC East and I promise you they would have had some 8-8 and 9-7 seasons tossed in there.
Increased competition means you are not starting every post season at home in the divisional round.
In other divisions....maybe NE goes 11-5 while Philly goes 12-4 and New England has to start the playoffs on the road against Green Bay or Seattle.
That is a realistic scenario every other team in the NFL faces except the Patriots
That never happens in the AFC East because it is a given that those teams will be garbage every year. Its supremely rare one of those other teams ever rises up and wins 11-13 games/season
Bunk Moreland said:Oh I know it's flawed. They're all flawed arguments. The AFC East has not had more than one team have a good run. The AFC North has had 2 teams both make runs, sometimes at the same time, and a 3rd that has shown up here and there.Quote:
Sorry, but this is a flawed argument.
First of all, you are effectively comparing 1, 2, and 3 in one division with 2, 3 and 4 in another division. I'm pretty sure you could do this with any two divisions and find disparity.
Second, you are letting the teams in the AFC North count their wins versus the Browns and holding the losses to the Patriots against the AFC East.
A better comparison would be wins from 2-4 in each division with division games taken out.
Over the last 17 seasons, the AFC East (not counting the Pats) has averaged 13.8 wins per season against non divisional opponents. The AFC North 2-4 has averaged 13.6 wins per season against non divisional opponents over the same period. Across the league, only the NFC East has been better at 13.9. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Let me put it more simply....I think if you put the Ravens in the AFC East instead of the Jets or Dolphins, the 17 year run isn't quite as excellent. It'd still likely be the best ever but there would be years they'd be challenged and lose the division or not get that 1st round bye as often as they have.
The Ravens are 1-6 in the regular season against New England since 2002. I suspect that if they had been in the AFC East since 2002, they would have fired Harbaugh like the rest of the AFC East, which leads to instability.
Grow desperate and fire your coach for not making the playoffs often enough with New England in your division is a recipe for a disaster.
Kellso said:This right here.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
New England is Florida St of the 1990's. Awesome program, but one that greatly benefits from playing in a crap division.
That is not the patriots fault, and really does not diminish them at all.
The Bills, Dolphins and Jets suck almost every year.
You put the Patriots in a division with some semblance of competition and they would not be winning the division every single year.
Please give me your definition of "crap division".
The AFC East has produced 20 teams with 0.500 or better records over the last 17 years not counting New England.
The NFC East (that you mentioned) has produced 24 teams with 0.500 or better records over the last 17 years that did not win their division.
These results are not that far off. When you consider the NFC East division winner has missed having a first round bye in the playoffs 9 of the last 17 years that difference would appear even less.
While none of the AFC East teams (outside of New England) may have won Super Bowls in the last 17 years, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is a "crap division".
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
You're arguing against something nobody is saying. We're talking about the specific level of consistent dominance.
And in the post season, more often than not they come off the bye and have the home game against many of those teams because of how weak their division has consistently been with no other challenger.
Again, sub the Ravens (not even the Steelers level of success) in for Miami or NYJ, and they aren't as dominant with the division titles and playoff runs over the years. That's my contention. I'm fine with folks disagreeing with that, but I'm not contending they aren't great. I've actually said multiple times it's the greatest dynasty of all time.
When was the last time the Bills won a playoff game?AggieDore said:Kellso said:This right here.Bunk Moreland said:
He wouldn't be 19-5 if he played each or either team twice a year. It's not apples to apples.
New England is Florida St of the 1990's. Awesome program, but one that greatly benefits from playing in a crap division.
That is not the patriots fault, and really does not diminish them at all.
The Bills, Dolphins and Jets suck almost every year.
You put the Patriots in a division with some semblance of competition and they would not be winning the division every single year.
Please give me your definition of "crap division".
The AFC East has produced 20 teams with 0.500 or better records over the last 17 years not counting New England.
The NFC East (that you mentioned) has produced 24 teams with 0.500 or better records over the last 17 years that did not win their division.
These results are not that far off. When you consider the NFC East division winner has missed having a first round bye in the playoffs 9 of the last 17 years that difference would appear even less.
While none of the AFC East teams (outside of New England) may have won Super Bowls in the last 17 years, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is a "crap division".
Same question goes for the Dolphins?
The AFC East sucks ass. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills suck every year. I can't believe you are even trying to debate this.
The AFC East sucking is a big reason the Patriots win 11-13 games every year.
Bunk stated it better than I....but some of you are getting riled up, and making up arguments that no one on this thread is making.ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
I don't think anyone has stated the Patriots are not a "great" team.
I've stated repeatedly that the AFC East sucking is not the Patriots fault and does not diminish their accomplishments.
When you win a weak division every year you get the advantage of starting the playoffs at home in the second round.
If you are playing in a tougher division you might have years where you are the wild card and have to play 3 post season games to get to the Super Bowl instead of 2......
You might have to play the wild card game on the road.
New England benefits from playing in a garbage division. That is Not their fault.
Kellso said:Bunk stated it better than I....but some of you are getting riled up, and making up arguments that no one on this thread is making.ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
I don't think anyone has stated the Patriots are not a "great" team.
I've stated repeatedly that the AFC East sucking is not the Patriots fault and does not diminish their accomplishments.
When you win a weak division every year you get the advantage of starting the playoffs at home in the second round.
If you are playing in a tougher division you might have years where you are the wild card and have to play 3 post season games to get to the Super Bowl instead of 2......
You might have to play the wild card game on the road.
New England benefits from playing in a garbage division. That is Not their fault.
This is such a dumb argument.
What is your favorite division? Please tell me how many playoff games your second place division team has historically won? All of those teams have to play on the road.
I find it even more hilarious that you decide to leave the Jets out of your question.
Jets' playoff history since 2002:
Jets Win 41-0 over Colts
Jets Lose 30-10 to Raiders
Jets Win 20-17 over Chargers
Jets Lose 20-17 to Steelers
Jets Lose 37-16 to Patriots
Jets Win 24-14 over Bengals
Jets Win 17-14 over Chargers
Jets Lose 30-17 to Colts
Jets Win 17-16 over Colts
Jets Win 28-21 over Patriots
Jets Lose 24-19 to Steelers
That's 6-5 over 17 seasons having to play in the Wild Card spot due to playing in the same division as New England. You tell me a single team whose playoff record would be the same if they had New England in their division.
The Bills have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they only lost by a touch down last year to Jacksonville on the road.
The Dolphins have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they have at least been 2008 Loss vs Ravens and 2016 Loss vs Steelers.
Kellso said:
When was the last time the Bills won a playoff game?
Same question goes for the Dolphins?
Last Playoff Win by Division (streaks longer than 10 years):
AFC East
Bills 1995
Dolphins 2000
AFC North
Bengals 1990
Browns 1994
AFC West
Raiders 2002
NFC East
Redskins 2005
NFC North
Lions 1991
NFC South
Buccaneers 2002
Every division except the NFC West and AFC South has at least one team with similar playoff win droughts. My guess is this number would go up significantly if a particular division had to contend with New England in their division every season and therefore at best had to play on the road in the playoffs every time they did make it.
Oh and by your new metric, wouldn't that make the AFC North worse than the AFC East as they have two teams with longer playoff win droughts?
Is Tom Brady your daddy or your lover??????AggieDore said:Kellso said:Bunk stated it better than I....but some of you are getting riled up, and making up arguments that no one on this thread is making.ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
I don't think anyone has stated the Patriots are not a "great" team.
I've stated repeatedly that the AFC East sucking is not the Patriots fault and does not diminish their accomplishments.
When you win a weak division every year you get the advantage of starting the playoffs at home in the second round.
If you are playing in a tougher division you might have years where you are the wild card and have to play 3 post season games to get to the Super Bowl instead of 2......
You might have to play the wild card game on the road.
New England benefits from playing in a garbage division. That is Not their fault.
This is such a dumb argument.
What is your favorite division? Please tell me how many playoff games your second place division team has historically won? All of those teams have to play on the road.
I find it even more hilarious that you decide to leave the Jets out of your question.
Jets' playoff history since 2002:
Jets Win 41-0 over Colts
Jets Lose 30-10 to Raiders
Jets Win 20-17 over Chargers
Jets Lose 20-17 to Steelers
Jets Lose 37-16 to Patriots
Jets Win 24-14 over Bengals
Jets Win 17-14 over Chargers
Jets Lose 30-17 to Colts
Jets Win 17-16 over Colts
Jets Win 28-21 over Patriots
Jets Lose 24-19 to Steelers
That's 6-5 over 17 seasons having to play in the Wild Card spot due to playing in the same division as New England. You tell me a single team whose playoff record would be the same if they had New England in their division.
The Bills have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they only lost by a touch down last year to Jacksonville on the road.
The Dolphins have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they have at least been 2008 Loss vs Ravens and 2016 Loss vs Steelers.
Jesus Christ.......... you are taking this waay too seriously.
The Dolphins and Bills have not won a playoff game since Bill Clinton was President: Case closed. The defense rest.
Ooh...you got me...I left out the Jets.
About 10 years ago the Jets had a little bit of success under Rex Ryan from 2008-2010 where they went 9-7
9-7 and 11-5.
They were also pretty good during the first Patriots run from 2001-2004 with some 9-7 and 10-6 seasons thrown in there.
Outside of those seasons they have been underwhelming during the Brady/Bellicheck era.......just like the Dolphins and Bills.
That is my whole point you Rhodes Scholar.
As great as the Patriots are I do not think they are the 1990's Chicago Bulls, or the current day Golden St Warriors where they are head and shoulders above everyone else.
What the Patriots are is a top 4 NFL team every year that has the benefit of playing in a crap division.
The Bills, Dolphins and Jets have rarely challenge the Patriots over the last 18 years.
ac04 said:
i'm going to the game and at first i was disappointed the pats were in again, but now I think it's going to be pretty cool to see the best QB-coach combo of all time play in a super bowl.
You sir are a lucky man you are right they are the greatest of all time.
I like how you state that someone was taking something "waay too seriously" right before you dumped additional technical arguments into the fire.Kellso said:Is Tom Brady your daddy or your lover??????AggieDore said:Kellso said:Bunk stated it better than I....but some of you are getting riled up, and making up arguments that no one on this thread is making.ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
I don't think anyone has stated the Patriots are not a "great" team.
I've stated repeatedly that the AFC East sucking is not the Patriots fault and does not diminish their accomplishments.
When you win a weak division every year you get the advantage of starting the playoffs at home in the second round.
If you are playing in a tougher division you might have years where you are the wild card and have to play 3 post season games to get to the Super Bowl instead of 2......
You might have to play the wild card game on the road.
New England benefits from playing in a garbage division. That is Not their fault.
This is such a dumb argument.
What is your favorite division? Please tell me how many playoff games your second place division team has historically won? All of those teams have to play on the road.
I find it even more hilarious that you decide to leave the Jets out of your question.
Jets' playoff history since 2002:
Jets Win 41-0 over Colts
Jets Lose 30-10 to Raiders
Jets Win 20-17 over Chargers
Jets Lose 20-17 to Steelers
Jets Lose 37-16 to Patriots
Jets Win 24-14 over Bengals
Jets Win 17-14 over Chargers
Jets Lose 30-17 to Colts
Jets Win 17-16 over Colts
Jets Win 28-21 over Patriots
Jets Lose 24-19 to Steelers
That's 6-5 over 17 seasons having to play in the Wild Card spot due to playing in the same division as New England. You tell me a single team whose playoff record would be the same if they had New England in their division.
The Bills have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they only lost by a touch down last year to Jacksonville on the road.
The Dolphins have not won a playoff game in 17 years, but they have at least been 2008 Loss vs Ravens and 2016 Loss vs Steelers.
Jesus Christ.......... you are taking this waay too seriously.
The Dolphins and Bills have not won a playoff game since Bill Clinton was President: Case closed. The defense rest.
Ooh...you got me...I left out the Jets.
About 10 years ago the Jets had a little bit of success under Rex Ryan from 2008-2010 where they went 9-7
9-7 and 11-5.
They were also pretty good during the first Patriots run from 2001-2004 with some 9-7 and 10-6 seasons thrown in there.
Outside of those seasons they have been underwhelming during the Brady/Bellicheck era.......just like the Dolphins and Bills.
That is my whole point you Rhodes Scholar.
As great as the Patriots are I do not think they are the 1990's Chicago Bulls, or the current day Golden St Warriors where they are head and shoulders above everyone else.
What the Patriots are is a top 4 NFL team every year that has the benefit of playing in a crap division.
The Bills, Dolphins and Jets have rarely challenge the Patriots over the last 18 years.
Also, you can't close the case before the defense rests...that is just silly.
Bunk Moreland said:ac said:
I'm no fan of the Patriots by any means, but discrediting them due to playing in a weak division is a farce. In the post season, they face the best from the other divisions and win quite often. Some of those wins (including last Sunday) have been on the road or at neutral sites (Super Bowl).
Like it or not, when one team wins that many championships, they have to be called a great team.
You're arguing against something nobody is saying. We're talking about the specific level of consistent dominance.
And in the post season, more often than not they come off the bye and have the home game against many of those teams because of how weak their division has consistently been with no other challenger.
Again, sub the Ravens (not even the Steelers level of success) in for Miami or NYJ, and they aren't as dominant with the division titles and playoff runs over the years. That's my contention. I'm fine with folks disagreeing with that, but I'm not contending they aren't great. I've actually said multiple times it's the greatest dynasty of all time.
Reminds me of the AFC Central from 1974-1979 when the Steelers benefitted from a pretty mediocre division.
Replace the Jets with the Oilers
Replace the Bills with the Bengals
Replace the Dolphins with the Brown and its pretty much the same.
You can see why the Steelers were gifted home field throughout those playoffs. Put them in the West where they would have had those physical battles with the Broncos and Raiders twice a year, and they probably have 1-2 less Super Bowl wins.
Featured Stories
See All
18:03
3h ago
1.8k
In-Home Visit: Elko's four early additions during spring portal window
by TexAgs Recruiting
11:24
31m ago
587
Reviewing A&M's recruiting returns in first four months of Elko tenure
by Ryan Brauninger
11:47
2h ago
729