Why has the AFC South only produced two AFC Super Bowl representatives in the past 15 years?

[JiffyJag]

Colts had a monopoly over the division and Manning couldn't get it done in the playoffs. 

and the rest of the teams are typically awful so 

[CWood21]

I'll ask you this, whose their starting QB?

[lancerman]

On 10/18/2017 at 10:38 PM, biletnikoff said:

Actually, the Colts have been as dominant  (making playoffs) as often as the STeelers  and Broncos in the SB era.

 The Pats are just new kids on the block the last 15 years. The Pats will die soon and the other 3 will cycle up again and again.

You say alot of dumb things that show that you have an  agenda. 

In the Super Bowl era the colts have been in exactly 4 Super Bowl's  (2 in the 70's and 2 in the 2010's)

The Patriots went to 9 Super Bowls (5 record) in 4 separate decades (a feat only matched by the Steelers). Oh and they 32 playoff wins. Only the Steelers (36), Packers (34),  Cowboys (34) have more. So basically only 3 of the first 4 multi Super Bowl winning teams have more and by about 2-4 at that. Not to mention they are top 5 in playoff game appearances. And top 2 in win percentage in the playoff behind a team with less than half as many appearances and wins (the Ravens).

The Colts have been to less playoff games. Won less playoff games. Appeared in less Super Bowls. And won less Super Bowls. And the majority of the Colts playoff success happened in the same period of the Super Bowl era as the Patriots

[everlong]

Indy were perennial choke artists and have struggled at drafting for quite some time.

Jacksonville and Tennessee have similar situations in the sense that they were mostly mediocre with a few good seasons sprinkled in before bottoming out and not finding away to climb back up. Part of this has been their inability to find a quarterback. Jacksonville has whiffed on three attempts (Gabbert being the most devastating due to trading up to get him) and Tennessee seemed to have finally found McNair's true successor in Mariota.

Houston always seems to have that one problem that holds them back: Schaub getting hurt, Schaub turning into Jake Delhomme, the defense bottoming out in 2010, etc. 

[sp6488]

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

You say alot of dumb things that show that you have an  agenda. 

In the Super Bowl era the colts have been in exactly 4 Super Bowl's  (2 in the 70's and 2 in the 2010's)

The Patriots went to 9 Super Bowls (5 record) in 4 separate decades (a feat only matched by the Steelers). Oh and they 32 playoff wins. Only the Steelers (36), Packers (34),  Cowboys (34) have more. So basically only 3 of the first 4 multi Super Bowl winning teams have more and by about 2-4 at that. Not to mention they are top 5 in playoff game appearances. And top 2 in win percentage in the playoff behind a team with less than half as many appearances and wins (the Ravens).

The Colts have been to less playoff games. Won less playoff games. Appeared in less Super Bowls. And won less Super Bowls. And the majority of the Colts playoff success happened in the same period of the Super Bowl era as the Patriots

7 of those 9, as well as all 5 wins) are in the current iteration of the Pats (BB/TB), FWIW.  The other two appearances were '85 and '96, both big time losses.  They are most certainly a "newer" dynasty/historical winner.  All 6 of the AFC appearances in the window quoted for the thread are the Pats.  

[SteelKing728]

On 10/17/2017 at 2:36 AM, Jakuvious said:

Beyond the fact that the AFC South has had a stint of poor play (which in itself is not unusual, you'd find similar stints throughout history for other divisions), 2 in 15 years actually isn't that off. 4 divisions in each conference means the average division should have 3.75 superbowl appearances. 2 isn't THAT far off of that. It's not even the only division at that same total. For reference, here's a breakdown by division:

AFC West: 3
AFC South: 2
AFC North: 4
AFC East: 6

NFC West: 5
NFC South: 5
NFC North: 2
NFC East: 3

The NFC North has been the same amount of times and it's been almost as long (a one year difference.) The AFC South actually hasn't been THAT bad over that 15 year stretch. They have over the last 6 or so, but it's really not anything outside the norm for a lesser NFL division. Some division is always going to be worst.

(It's kind of mind blowing that the Packers only have one superbowl appearance in that time frame.)

The north had what?

Bears 06

Packers 07

Vikings 09

Packers 10

Packers 14

Packers 16

Right?

 

[7DnBrnc53]

The AFC South isn't great, but the AFC East hasn't sent a non-Patriot rep to the SB since 1993 (Bills). Also, if it wasn't for Indy's charity in 2009 and 10, the 98 Jets would be the last non-Patriot AFC East team to make the AFC Title Game. 

[Jakuvious]

35 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

The north had what?

Bears 06

Packers 07

Vikings 09

Packers 10

Packers 14

Packers 16

Right?

 

Without looking those years up, I can only assume that you're mixing up conference championship games with superbowls. I definitely remember the 09 Vikings and a couple of those Packers teams making and losing the championship game. But, see thread title:

Quote

Why has the AFC South only produced two AFC Super Bowl representatives in the past 15 years?

And it was pretty clear in my post as well, given the numbers (15 appearances for each conference in 15 years, would be 30 if it was championship game) and the couple of times that I say "super bowl appearances" in the post.

For what it's worth, the AFC South has had 5 AFC Championship game appearances in the past 15 years. 1 by the 03 Titans and then a handful of Peyton Colts teams. Still pretty similar numbers there.

2 conference championship game appearances in 15 years actually would be pretty abysmally remarkable. But not 2 superbowl appearances.

[lancerman]

48 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

7 of those 9, as well as all 5 wins) are in the current iteration of the Pats (BB/TB), FWIW.  The other two appearances were '85 and '96, both big time losses.  They are most certainly a "newer" dynasty/historical winner.  All 6 of the AFC appearances in the window quoted for the thread are the Pats.  

Which completely misses the point I made. The Colts have never been a dominant team in the Super Bowl Era. They went to 4 under two iterations (under Unitas and Manning). The Pats went to 9 under 3 iterations (the 85 team which was kinda Grogan's, the Bledsoe era, and the Brady Era). The majority of the Colts playoff success came under the Manning Era which coincided with the Brady era. If you take that away, they aren't a team to even talk about. The Colts did nothing in the 80's, 90's or 2010's. Most of their playoff success spans the very early 70's and the mid to late 2000's. And they went 1-1 in each instance. Without nearly the playoff pedigree. 

Also you could say this about most teams. The Cowboys went to 5 of their 8 under Staubach and Landry. And then 3 under Aikman. Then never went in the 80's, 00's or 10's. Same with the Steelers. 4 of their 8 were under 1 regime, 3 were under another, and 1 was a random one in the 90's. Most teams that are considered historically great, went to their Super Bowl in chunks. All 5 of the Niners wins came between 82-96, plus the 2012 appearance. 

Essentially what biletnikoff is trying to say is that because the Colts went 1-1 in the 1968 and 1970 and did nothing since until the Patriots were winning Super Bowls where they basically went from 2006-2009, that they should be considered a more dominant team. He wants to basically call it 1968-2009 even though that's not what really happened. Post 1970 until the day Manning took over (where the Patriots had already won their first Super Bowl) the Colts had a whopping total of 3 playoff wins from 1971-2003. The Patriots actually had 6 from 1971-their first Super Bowl winning season. 

In the Super Bowl era the Colts missed the playoffs in 28 seasons. Same as the Patriots. Except the Patriots have far more playoff wins, Super Bowl appearances and wins than the Colts. Hell even the Cowboys who are considered one of the most consistently successful teams in NFL history missed the playoffs 19 times. And the Steelers missed it 23 times. Yeah the bulk of their success is newer. Historically they still measure up with just about any other great franchise. Which is why the statement he made to insinuate that the Patriots are a flash in the pan franchise that will just roll over unlike the real great franchises is ridiculous. 

Then again you are defending the point of someone who predicts the demise of the Patriots every year and has long since lost credibility with most people on this board.

[Soko]

Two expansion teams, Peyton in the playoffs, Jeff Fisher.

[biletnikoff]

8 hours ago, lancerman said:

You say alot of dumb things that show that you have an  agenda. 

In the Super Bowl era the colts have been in exactly 4 Super Bowl's  (2 in the 70's and 2 in the 2010's)

The Patriots went to 9 Super Bowls (5 record) in 4 separate decades (a feat only matched by the Steelers). Oh and they 32 playoff wins. Only the Steelers (36), Packers (34),  Cowboys (34) have more. So basically only 3 of the first 4 multi Super Bowl winning teams have more and by about 2-4 at that. Not to mention they are top 5 in playoff game appearances. And top 2 in win percentage in the playoff behind a team with less than half as many appearances and wins (the Ravens).

The Colts have been to less playoff games. Won less playoff games. Appeared in less Super Bowls. And won less Super Bowls. And the majority of the Colts playoff success happened in the same period of the Super Bowl era as the Patriots

no, I say a lot of intelligent things based on my knowledge of sports history that you arent well schooled enough in to debate me.

Quote

In the Super Bowl era the colts have been in exactly 4 Super Bowl's  (2 in the 70's and 2 in the 2010's)

pay attention my child. I said they make the playoffs as much and more than the other teams,along with the elite ones during the SB era. I didnt say more than the Pats the last 15 years.

I will correct myself in that they were dominant before the SBs with Unitas as well. Colts have been a dominant team throughout their history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indianapolis_Colts_seasons

the Patriots are a 15 year drop in the history bucket. That was my over all point. The fact is that while the Pats have had more juice of late. The Colts have still been successful as well by competing in the playoffs in a majority of years. The Pats have had one successful QB. The Colts will have had 3 ..Unitas,Manning,Luck.Hell, Even Harbaugh was a game away from an SB in 95.

 

Quote

Not to mention they are top 5 in playoff game appearances.

only currently.-.that wont hold over time. compared to the Colts,Steelers,Dallas or anyone else.

you are looking at a trend. I am talking to you about over all history.

Quote

The Colts have been to less playoff games. Won less playoff games. Appeared in less Super Bowls. And won less Super Bowls. And the majority of the Colts playoff success happened in the same period of the Super Bowl era as the Patriots

you are only counting the period that the Pats were successful. I am looking at all of history.

the Patriots will never reach what the Colts,Steelers, Dallas,Broncos,Giants have. Even during this great run by the Pats..these other teams kept cycling back up as well.

that was my underlying point that I guess I didnt word well enough. What happened to the Cleveland Browns is what will happen to the Pats now. Theyve had their glory. Fro here on in it will be Pats suck jokes for another 40 years. While the teams I mentioned keep winning in cycles again and again.

I'm sorry. I was taking a more global and historic view. While youre stuck in the trendy -now.

 

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, biletnikoff said:

 

the Patriots will never reach what the Colts,Steelers, Dallas,Broncos,Giants have. Even during this great run by the Pats..these other teams kept cycling back up as well.

that was my underlying point that I guess I didnt word well enough. What happened to the Cleveland Browns is what will happen to the Pats now. Theyve had their glory. Fro here on in it will be Pats suck jokes for another 40 years. While the teams I mentioned keep winning in cycles again and again.

I'm sorry. I was taking a more global and historic view. While youre stuck in the trendy -now.

 

You lost credibility here, bud. This is one of wishful thinking, banter or trolling. Or all 3 

[biletnikoff]

6 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

You lost credibility here, bud. This is one of wishful thinking, banter or trolling. Or all 3 

dont forget your pickem picks!

 

how can I lose credibility?, when I've shown exactly what has happened in football history.

its the same 10 teams in the playoffs year after year after year.(You are never going to see an era,ever..where the KC's and Detroits and Jacksonvilles and Saints,Texans etc.. are all grouped together having some decade long run) The Pats are just the new kids on the block in that cycle.

Even The Niners and Giants and Pitt and GB and Colts,Denver, made it back to the top where theyve already been numerous cycles, while the Pats were involved in their recent run.

The Pats are a  back to the future version of the Cleveland Browns when the Browns owned the 1950s to early 60s. This is the end of that ,here and now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hunter2_1]

48 minutes ago, biletnikoff said:

dont forget your pickem picks!

 

how can I lose credibility?, when I've shown exactly what has happened in football history.

its the same 10 teams in the playoffs year after year after year.(You are never going to see an era,ever..where the KC's and Detroits and Jacksonvilles and Saints,Texans etc.. are all grouped together having some decade long run) The Pats are just the new kids on the block in that cycle.

Even The Niners and Giants and Pitt and GB and Colts,Denver, made it back to the top where theyve already been numerous cycles, while the Pats were involved in their recent run.

The Pats are a  back to the future version of the Cleveland Browns when the Browns owned the 1950s to early 60s. This is the end of that ,here and now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picks are in, retaking 2nd place this week.

"Pats are the next Browns" is trolololol-ol-olol. 

Watch Jimmy G become the next Rodgers 

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, biletnikoff said:

no, I say a lot of intelligent things based on my knowledge of sports history that you arent well schooled enough in to debate me.

pay attention my child. I said they make the playoffs as much and more than the other teams,along with the elite ones during the SB era. I didnt say more than the Pats the last 15 years.

I will correct myself in that they were dominant before the SBs with Unitas as well. Colts have been a dominant team throughout their history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indianapolis_Colts_seasons

the Patriots are a 15 year drop in the history bucket. That was my over all point. The fact is that while the Pats have had more juice of late. The Colts have still been successful as well by competing in the playoffs in a majority of years. The Pats have had one successful QB. The Colts will have had 3 ..Unitas,Manning,Luck.Hell, Even Harbaugh was a game away from an SB in 95.

 

only currently.-.that wont hold over time. compared to the Colts,Steelers,Dallas or anyone else.

you are looking at a trend. I am talking to you about over all history.

you are only counting the period that the Pats were successful. I am looking at all of history.

the Patriots will never reach what the Colts,Steelers, Dallas,Broncos,Giants have. Even during this great run by the Pats..these other teams kept cycling back up as well.

that was my underlying point that I guess I didnt word well enough. What happened to the Cleveland Browns is what will happen to the Pats now. Theyve had their glory. Fro here on in it will be Pats suck jokes for another 40 years. While the teams I mentioned keep winning in cycles again and again.

I'm sorry. I was taking a more global and historic view. While youre stuck in the trendy -now.

 

No you aren't counting everything. You are actually doing the opposite. You're saying we should put more emphasis on teams that were successful at some point in the 60's and 70's and disregard a team that had their success in the 2000's and 2010's. 

In the Super Bowl Era:

Playoff appearances

Colts: 45

Patriots: 51

Playoff wins:

Colts: 22

Patriots: 32

Super Bowl appearances:

Colts: 4

Patriots: 9 (NFL record)

Super Bowl wins:

Colts: 2

Patriots: 5

 

I mean come on do you know dumb you sound when you say "the Colts were a game away from a Super Bowl in 95", when the Patriots were literally in one the very next year. Or the fact that the Patriots and Colts had appeared in the exact same amount of Super Bowls before Tom Brady and Bill Belichick were QB and coach? Before Tom Brady and Bill Belichick the Colts had 8 playoff wins and the Patriots had 6. Not a big difference. The vast majority of the Colts playoff pedigree came in the same era as the Patriots. By what metric are the Colts more successful? The only one you managed to bring up was the fact that they had some success earlier. 

And your being misleading. The Patriots yes had most of their success in one period, like most teams. Like the Broncos who went to 5 of their 7 Super Bowls in a 13 year period. The Niners who went to 5 of their 6 Super Bowls in a 15 year period. The Cowboys who went to 5 of their 8 in a 9 year period. The Giants didn't even start going to Super Bowls until the year after the Patriots won their first one. The first two wins were over a 5 year period, the second two were over a 5 year period, and then there was one appearance in the middle of that. 

You say all these other teams keep cropping up but they really don't. Every team has won all their Super Bowls in one or two chunks for the most part or had a short burst and then a few decades later had another short burst. Like what's the difference between the Niners who won 5 in 15 years and went to one a 3 decades later and the Patriots who won 5 and went to 7 in 16 years then had an appearance in two earlier decades? Virtually nothing?

Again you are looking at things completely out of context to support your hypothesis. You're ignoring how the majority of these teams had the lionshare of their success in giant chunks or sometimes two smaller ones to support an opinion that just doesn't hold water. 

And yes I'm sorry you know most people here don't put much stock in your opinion and you have been called out on it many times. Every year you predict the downfall of the Patriots and you they've been in the AFCCG 6 of the last 6 years and appeared in 3 and won 2 Super Bowls. Someday the broken clock will be right like it would have been with other teams. But 1 Super Bowl appearance in the 80's, 1 Super Bowl appearance in the 90's, 3-1 in the 2000's and 2-1 in the 2010's is not a flash in the pan.