childofpudding Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 On 3/2/2018 at 10:17 AM, Malik said: Pats being good and AFC East being bad are not mutually exclusive things. They are both true. No one would say the Dolphins from 01-Present have been above average. The Bills between 01-Present are arguably in contention for the worst over the spread with only the Browns being definitively worst. No would argue that that the Jets haven't been middling from 01-Present. The 2-4 teams in most divisions from 2001-present are what you've described regarding the Dolphins, Jets and Bills. Middling to bad. The fact is that the Patriots have done better against several other divisions (games that include playing a harder schedule because theyre playing all four teams in that division) than against the 2-4 teams in their own division. There is a narrative in this thread that the Patriots have done as well as they have in part because theyve been in the AFC East and not a harder division like the AFC North. But consider this: The Patriots have a 77.5% win percentage vs. Miami, Buffalo and NYJ since 2001; they have a 76.9% win percentage against Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati. So the more reasonable hypothetical is that if NE had swapped places with Cleveland in 2001, everyone here would be writing about how weak the AFC North is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobikus Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 The AFC isn't seen as weak just because of poor cumulative schedule or record against the Pats specifically but the fact that they've almost never had a team in the 21st Century that remotely has looked like a contender for anything. Outside of a 2 year stretch from the Jets it's been ages since any team from the AFCE has looked like a squad that could aspire to anything better than a wildcard round exit. From 2001-2017 the second highest team in the AFCE is 20th in win%, and the division has been even worse over the last decade, being the only one without at least 2 teams in the top 20. The Pats have a similar win% against the AFCE as otherwise isn't seen as anything beyond the fact that "it's divisional games, upsets happen" and those divisional are essentially never seen as anything but bad to mediocre teams that sometimes pull an upset because any given Sunday and all that. They're never seen as a team even remotely competing in the division, let alone SB contenders, even in the years they do take a game off the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 On 3/5/2018 at 5:26 PM, Bobikus said: The AFC isn't seen as weak just because of poor cumulative schedule or record against the Pats specifically but the fact that they've almost never had a team in the 21st Century that remotely has looked like a contender for anything. Outside of a 2 year stretch from the Jets it's been ages since any team from the AFCE has looked like a squad that could aspire to anything better than a wildcard round exit. From 2001-2017 the second highest team in the AFCE is 20th in win%, and the division has been even worse over the last decade, being the only one without at least 2 teams in the top 20. The Pats have a similar win% against the AFCE as otherwise isn't seen as anything beyond the fact that "it's divisional games, upsets happen" and those divisional are essentially never seen as anything but bad to mediocre teams that sometimes pull an upset because any given Sunday and all that. They're never seen as a team even remotely competing in the division, let alone SB contenders, even in the years they do take a game off the Pats. To your point about "it's divisional games, upsets happen." Consider these facts: The Steelers, Colts and Broncos have the best overall records in their respective divisions from 2001-2017. Given your theory that the AFC East has been weak and "it's divisional games, upsets happen," you would think that the Colts, Broncos and Steelers would all have a much easier time playing the supposedly weak Bills, Dolphins and Jets than they would playing in their own division. And yet in that time: The Colts have a 72% win percentage in their own division, but a 56% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami, and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Colts done so much worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Broncos have a 59% win percentage in their own division, but a 55% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Broncos done worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Steelers have a 71% win percentage in their own division, and a slightly better 73% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Steelers barely done better against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? A couple other facts to your point about other AFC East teams not being remotely competitive. Since 2001: NYJ/MIA/BUF has been in 2 conference championships. BAL/CIN/CLE have been in 3, SD/KC/OAK have been in 2, and TEN/HOU/JAC have been in 2. If the AFC East is as weak as people claim, why are these numbers so close? NYJ/MIA/BUF have a 38% win percentage in the playoffs. Meanwhile, TEN/HOU/JAC/BAL/CIN/CLE/SD/KC/OAK have a 39% win percentage in the playoffs. If the AFC East is as weak as people claim, why are these number practically equivalent? Given these facts, it's logical to conclude that the real reason the AFC East is seen as weak is because the Patriots have been in it. If the Patriots had switched to another division in 2001, there's a high probability that they would have dominated that division and people would be calling that division weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 8, 2018 Share Posted March 8, 2018 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/7/2018 at 10:19 PM, childofpudding said: To your point about "it's divisional games, upsets happen." Consider these facts: The Steelers, Colts and Broncos have the best overall records in their respective divisions from 2001-2017. Given your theory that the AFC East has been weak and "it's divisional games, upsets happen," you would think that the Colts, Broncos and Steelers would all have a much easier time playing the supposedly weak Bills, Dolphins and Jets than they would playing in their own division. And yet in that time: The Colts have a 72% win percentage in their own division, but a 56% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami, and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Colts done so much worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Broncos have a 59% win percentage in their own division, but a 55% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Broncos done worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Steelers have a 71% win percentage in their own division, and a slightly better 73% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Steelers barely done better against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? A couple other facts to your point about other AFC East teams not being remotely competitive. Since 2001: NYJ/MIA/BUF has been in 2 conference championships. BAL/CIN/CLE have been in 3, SD/KC/OAK have been in 2, and TEN/HOU/JAC have been in 2. If the AFC East is as weak as people claim, why are these numbers so close? NYJ/MIA/BUF have a 38% win percentage in the playoffs. Meanwhile, TEN/HOU/JAC/BAL/CIN/CLE/SD/KC/OAK have a 39% win percentage in the playoffs. If the AFC East is as weak as people claim, why are these number practically equivalent? Given these facts, it's logical to conclude that the real reason the AFC East is seen as weak is because the Patriots have been in it. If the Patriots had switched to another division in 2001, there's a high probability that they would have dominated that division and people would be calling that division weak. This is a really dishonest use of statistics. The Bills winning percentage in the playoffs since 2001 is 0%. They've been to the playoffs once. Literally just had the longest active playoff drought until this past season. The Dolphins are 0-3 since 2001 which again is 0%. The only reason it's even close to even statistically is because the Bills and Dolphins don't have any appearances to bring down the overall percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 3/7/2018 at 10:19 PM, childofpudding said: To your point about "it's divisional games, upsets happen." Consider these facts: The Steelers, Colts and Broncos have the best overall records in their respective divisions from 2001-2017. Given your theory that the AFC East has been weak and "it's divisional games, upsets happen," you would think that the Colts, Broncos and Steelers would all have a much easier time playing the supposedly weak Bills, Dolphins and Jets than they would playing in their own division. And yet in that time: The Colts have a 72% win percentage in their own division, but a 56% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami, and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Colts done so much worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Broncos have a 59% win percentage in their own division, but a 55% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Broncos done worse against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? The Steelers have a 71% win percentage in their own division, and a slightly better 73% win percentage against Buffalo, Miami and the Jets. If the AFC East has been as weak as people claim, why have the Steelers barely done better against BUF/MIA/NYJ than in their own division? Just because team 1 beats another that team 2 didn't doesn't make them the lesser team of the two. You are trying to make all teams/games equal here and it don't work like that. To put this in better perspective. It took the Lions 20 years to beat the Packers at home. Does that mean that every inter-divisional or inter-conference team that the Lions did beat at their home place were that much inferior to the Packers during that time? Division games are always tougher and for this reason you have to put more weight into those than any other team on the schedule. In order; 1) Division 2) Inter-division 3) Inter-conference. How many times in the last (say) 15 years have the Jets, Bills and Dolphins been considered a legitimate SB threat by the masses or even just a playoff contender? There have been very few and none of which where just because of the Patriots playing in the same division. Those opinions were mainly based on the lack of talent at key positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 21 hours ago, Malik said: This is a really dishonest use of statistics. The Bills winning percentage in the playoffs since 2001 is 0%. They've been to the playoffs once. Literally just had the longest active playoff drought until this past season. The Dolphins are 0-3 since 2001 which again is 0%. The only reason it's even close to even statistically is because the Bills and Dolphins don't have any appearances to bring down the overall percentage. I gave a bevy of statistics to support my argument. You ignored almost all of them, but cherry picked one to attack and call my use of statistics dishonest. That in itself is dishonest. To your poi t, Cleveland and Cincinnati also have 0 playoff wins since 2001, and KC has 1. What about the fact that Denver, Indy and Pittsburgh have all done worse or marginally better against NYJ/BUF/MIA, which many argue are so bad, than in their own divisions against supposedly better teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 On 3/9/2018 at 1:13 AM, JustAnotherFan said: Just because team 1 beats another that team 2 didn't doesn't make them the lesser team of the two. You are trying to make all teams/games equal here and it don't work like that. To put this in better perspective. It took the Lions 20 years to beat the Packers at home. Does that mean that every inter-divisional or inter-conference team that the Lions did beat at their home place were that much inferior to the Packers during that time? Division games are always tougher and for this reason you have to put more weight into those than any other team on the schedule. In order; 1) Division 2) Inter-division 3) Inter-conference. How many times in the last (say) 15 years have the Jets, Bills and Dolphins been considered a legitimate SB threat by the masses or even just a playoff contender? There have been very few and none of which where just because of the Patriots playing in the same division. Those opinions were mainly based on the lack of talent at key positions. You say division games are tougher. Then why have Indy and Denver done better, and Pittsburgh done just slightly worse, in their division games compared to vs. BUF/MIA/NYJ, three teams that supposedly make the AFC East so weak? I grant you Buffalo and Miami regarding SB threat, but that's not unusual in any division. When has Cincinnati, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Houston, Tennessee, KC or SD ever been considered a legit SB contender since 2001? Very rarely, if ever. Certainly not more than the Jets, who have made it to two AFCCs in that period. Really the only regular SB threats in the AFC since 2001 have been the Ravens or a team with Brady, Roethlisberger or Manning. 15 of the 17 SBs since 2001 have had Brady, Roesthlisberger or Manning playing. Maybe the real argument should be not that the AFC East in particular has been weak, but that the entire AFC has been top-heavy since 2001. -- Here are some other facts. Win percentages since 2001 against each AFC divisions' 2-4 teams by all teams outside their division (each bullet point represents about 510 games): vs. TEN/JAC/HOU: 56.1% vs. KC/OAK/LAC: 53.5% vs. BAL/CIN/CLE: 53.0% vs. BUF/MIA/NYJ: 52.5% :shrugs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Dang, this debate man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 12 hours ago, childofpudding said: I gave a bevy of statistics to support my argument. You ignored almost all of them, but cherry picked one to attack and call my use of statistics dishonest. That in itself is dishonest. To your poi t, Cleveland and Cincinnati also have 0 playoff wins since 2001, and KC has 1. What about the fact that Denver, Indy and Pittsburgh have all done worse or marginally better against NYJ/BUF/MIA, which many argue are so bad, than in their own divisions against supposedly better teams? Naw the idea that you don't know how sample size can affect percentages is all I need to know man. You either can't or refuse to connect the dots from there. You think going 7-21 is the same as 1-3 because they both end up as 33%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, Malik said: Naw the idea that you don't know how sample size can affect percentages is all I need to know man. You either can't or refuse to connect the dots from there. You think going 7-21 is the same as 1-3 because they both end up as 33%. No, I dont think that. You just refuse to acknowledge any evidence that Buffalo, Miami and NYJ arent as bad as you want to believe. See my latest post before this one, in which the sample size is about 510 games for each bullet point. Buffalo, Miami and NYJ havent been that good since 2001, but neither have the 2-4 teams in every other division. I've provided evidence with significant sample sizes to support that position, while you have replied with attacks and excuses. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 22 hours ago, childofpudding said: You say division games are tougher. Then why have Indy and Denver done better, and Pittsburgh done just slightly worse, in their division games compared to vs. BUF/MIA/NYJ, three teams that supposedly make the AFC East so weak? I grant you Buffalo and Miami regarding SB threat, but that's not unusual in any division. When has Cincinnati, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Houston, Tennessee, KC or SD ever been considered a legit SB contender since 2001? Very rarely, if ever. Certainly not more than the Jets, who have made it to two AFCCs in that period. Really the only regular SB threats in the AFC since 2001 have been the Ravens or a team with Brady, Roethlisberger or Manning. 15 of the 17 SBs since 2001 have had Brady, Roesthlisberger or Manning playing. Maybe the real argument should be not that the AFC East in particular has been weak, but that the entire AFC has been top-heavy since 2001. -- Here are some other facts. Win percentages since 2001 against each AFC divisions' 2-4 teams by all teams outside their division (each bullet point represents about 510 games): vs. TEN/JAC/HOU: 56.1% vs. KC/OAK/LAC: 53.5% vs. BAL/CIN/CLE: 53.0% vs. BUF/MIA/NYJ: 52.5% :shrugs: Again, you are trying treat every game played as if each team is equal. Pittsburgh, for example, has been one of the most consistent winners year in and year out but It's also well known that they play down to their opponents.....is that factored anywhere in here? And isn't just a myth either. This is from a few years ago but it still applies today. Look at each team in each division over the last 16 years(2002) that you could have made a legit argument for and almost every other division has had more legit competitors than the East has. The AFC East has had only two teams; the Jets for 1 year (1, maybe 2 years if you count those unexpected years with Tebow and Sanchez) and the Patriots. That's it. The only other division that would come close to that would be the AFC South and MAYBE the NFC West. AFC North (3 teams) Pitt Ravens Cincy AFC West(3 teams) KC Chargers Denver (Heck even Oakland in 2016 but much like the Jets, they came out of nowhere so I won't count them) AFC South(2 teams) Titans (They had a legit argument for 1 or 2 years with CJ, Collins, top 3 OL and that defense) Indy NFC East (4 teams) The strangest division in the NFL with the highest turnover rate. Each year they have a different winner but almost every year they have a legit contender. NFC North(3 teams) Packers Vikings Chicago NFC South(3 teams) Saints Panthers Falcons (Bucs too IF you wanna get technical and include 15 years ago, yes - but I don't) NFC West(2 teams) Seattle 49ers Cardinals - maybe 22 hours ago, childofpudding said: Maybe the real argument should be not that the AFC East in particular has been weak, but that the entire AFC has been top-heavy since 2001. Yes and no. Top heavy in terms of consistency, yes. But all in all, there have still been some very good teams throughout the years in the AFC, the difference between them and those that you mentioned is that they haven't been able to maintain that same level of success for more than a few years at a time. Nonetheless, that is a legit statement and one I certainly agree with. While I stand by the fact the AFC East has been relatively weak, I don't agree that the Patriots schedule as whole has been weak in comparison to other teams over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 10 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said: Again, you are trying treat every game played as if each team is equal. Pittsburgh, for example, has been one of the most consistent winners year in and year out but It's also well known that they play down to their opponents.....is that factored anywhere in here? And isn't just a myth either. This is from a few years ago but it still applies today. Look at each team in each division over the last 16 years(2002) that you could have made a legit argument for and almost every other division has had more legit competitors than the East has. The AFC East has had only two teams; the Jets for 1 year (1, maybe 2 years if you count those unexpected years with Tebow and Sanchez) and the Patriots. That's it. The only other division that would come close to that would be the AFC South and MAYBE the NFC West. AFC North (3 teams) Pitt Ravens Cincy AFC West(3 teams) KC Chargers Denver (Heck even Oakland in 2016 but much like the Jets, they came out of nowhere so I won't count them) AFC South(2 teams) Titans (They had a legit argument for 1 or 2 years with CJ, Collins, top 3 OL and that defense) Indy NFC East (4 teams) The strangest division in the NFL with the highest turnover rate. Each year they have a different winner but almost every year they have a legit contender. NFC North(3 teams) Packers Vikings Chicago NFC South(3 teams) Saints Panthers Falcons (Bucs too IF you wanna get technical and include 15 years ago, yes - but I don't) NFC West(2 teams) Seattle 49ers Cardinals - maybe Yes and no. Top heavy in terms of consistency, yes. But all in all, there have still been some very good teams throughout the years in the AFC, the difference between them and those that you mentioned is that they haven't been able to maintain that same level of success for more than a few years at a time. Nonetheless, that is a legit statement and one I certainly agree with. While I stand by the fact the AFC East has been relatively weak, I don't agree that the Patriots schedule as whole has been weak in comparison to other teams over the years. You just listed Cincy as a competitor, which hasnt won a playoff game since 2001, but argued that you could say the Jets were only competitors for one year even though they've won 6 playoff games and made the AFCC twice in that time. I'm not going to go team by team, but that exemplifies the kind of bias that some people have against the AFC East. Cincy has been no more a competitor in this league since 2001 than Buffalo or Miami. No one has thought they were a legit contender for anything. Also, if the Steelers play down to their opponent, then it means theyre not as good. That's an argument against, not for, the strength of that division. Wins and losses matter. I dont think the AFC East has been some ridiculously great division. Not at all. Just that theyve been about as mediocre as most divisions, with teams having few chances to do damage not because theyre horrible as much as because theyre in the Patriots' division. Switch the Patriots with the Colts, for example, and I'd argue that the AFC South would look even more pathetic than it has. Same goes for most divisions - switch the Patriots for their best team, and the division as a whole would look weaker from 2001-present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted March 11, 2018 Share Posted March 11, 2018 On 2/8/2018 at 7:33 AM, Pats#1 said: the Patriots have the same win % against the "cup cake" AFC East as they do against out of division opponents. Has the entire NFL been a cup cake schedule to benefit the Pats for the last 18 years? The league was only .500 this past season. Looks like that was the case for all 18 of those years as well. That's mediocre as hell if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 4 hours ago, sp6488 said: The league was only .500 this past season. Looks like that was the case for all 18 of those years as well. That's mediocre as hell if you ask me! Maybe but in the Patriots run they didn't consistently play an easier schedule than all the other teams. So it's dubious to say they are only where they are do tolack of competition. We see teams that walk through a cupcake division get a 3 or 4 seed and get bounced from the wildcard round. The Patriots have never been eliminated in the wildcard round. They are beating everyone and having strong playoff performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.