Since 2002, the Patriots are 99-18 when playing at home

[Whitty Hutton]

I don't know how you couldn't understand that the AFC East record as a whole is affected majorly by the Pats practically running the table on the division for nearly 15 years and also being a dominant team in their own right against the rest of the league. Them other three just been whipping boys for the NFL

 

[No1]

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2013/10/nfl-team-records-vs-each-division-since-2002/

Their record within the AFC East is much better than any other team vs any other division (55-14 from 2002-2013)

That doesn't help your point. It just adds to how impressive and consistent they have been, and ignores the fact that FACE posts the third best winning percentage without the Pats. If the Pats were in the AFC South their record would be the same, and in any other AFC division if you are swapping them with that division's best team.

 

[bangbreh]

Namea Better team

You know what's crazy, people like to shyt on the NFC as the worse conference yet 3/4 of the 4 divisions in the AFC were sealed up like a month ago while it's week 17 and there's only one outright division winner in the NFC

yeah....AFC is booty buns.
A LOB vs LOB lite in the Pats would be
I'm sure @Misfit already got the thread tagged to go

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

That doesn't help your point. It just adds to how impressive and consistent they have been, and ignores the fact that FACE posts the third best winning percentage without the Pats. If the Pats were in the AFC South their record would be the same, and in any other AFC division if you are swapping them with that division's best team.

That doesnt make any sense to me. They have been impressive and consistent but it also shows that every other division has had a higher level of parity within themselves over that time period. The only real comparison is the Packers and NFC North..theyve been consistent and dominant yet only DET has an under .500 divisional record. Bears and Vikings both were over .500.

 

[Jplaya2023]

Pats seahawks sb is gonna be this year

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2013/10/nfl-team-records-vs-each-division-since-2002/

Their record within the AFC East is much better than any other team vs any other division (55-14 from 2002-2013)

Here breh, this explains what people are trying to tell you regarding the AFC East:

http://www.patspulpit.com/2014/2/26/5451184/in-defense-of-the-afc-east

That doesnt make any sense to me. They have been impressive and consistent but it also shows that every other division has had a higher level of parity within themselves over that time period. The only real comparison is the Packers and NFC North..theyve been consistent and dominant yet only DET has an under .500 divisional record. Bears and Vikings both were over .500.

Parity does NOT mean a tough division.

The NFC South this year is a very evenly matched, so is the AFC North. Obviously one is "tough" the other is not. And winning percentages is the best way to gauge that.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Here breh, this explains what people are trying to tell you regarding the AFC East:

http://www.patspulpit.com/2014/2/26/5451184/in-defense-of-the-afc-east




Parity does NOT mean a tough division.

The NFC South this year is a very evenly matched, so is the AFC North. Obviously one is "tough" the other is not. And winning percentages is the best way to gauge that.

good article.

i almost x'ed out of it when that clown wrote that it wasnt a coincidence the colts were 2nd because they used to be in the AFC east though. but listen..how many teams other than the patriots in that division have even won a playoff game during the time period? the jets those years and thats it? the best part about the afc east is that generally they havent had a TERRIBLE team in it. in that time period, most of the teams were at least average...the article makes some good points but im sorry nothing is going to convince me that the AFC east has been the best division since 2002.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

Namea Better team

yeah....AFC is booty buns.
A LOB vs LOB lite in the Pats would be
I'm sure @Misfit already got the thread tagged to go

And I always find it amusing seeing NFC West teams pop shyt like that hasn't been the worst division in football for most of Brady's career.

 

[No1]

That doesnt make any sense to me. They have been impressive and consistent but it also shows that every other division has had a higher level of parity within themselves over that time period. The only real comparison is the Packers and NFC North..theyve been consistent and dominant yet only DET has an under .500 divisional record. Bears and Vikings both were over .500.

How in the world does parity equal a better division? The NFC South has parity right now. If I have a big ass juggernaut in my division making everyone basically know they are starting every season 0-2, of course I am not going to look good. It does not mean that other divisions of equal mediocrity are better. What you do outside of your division is a much better barometer of how good your division is then what you do against each other.

Division Summary in Non-Division Games, 2002-2013
Division W L T Pct. PF PA PD AVG DVOA OFF DVOA DEF DVOA ST DVOA
AFC East 259 221 0 0.540 10,746 9,831 915 7.6% 1.7% -2.4% 3.5%
NFC East 253 226 1 0.528 10,885 10,504 381 4.3% 4.0% -2.0% -1.6%
AFC North 246 232 2 0.515 10,265 9,765 500 4.1% -2.0% -4.5% 1.5%
NFC South 251 228 1 0.524 10,665 10,295 370 1.1% -0.4% -1.7% -0.2%
AFC West 231 249 0 0.481 10,950 11,036 -86 0.6% 6.2% 4.2% -1.5%
AFC South 249 231 0 0.519 10,448 10,797 -349 -1.8% 1.4% 2.3% -0.9%
NFC North 225 255 0 0.469 10,908 11,006 -98 -3.6% -3.9% 0.8% 1.0%
NFC West 204 276 0 0.425 9,617 11,250 -1,633 -12.8% -9.0% 2.4% -1.4%

Even if the AFC East were weak, what does that matter when the Pats beat up on everybody? The AFC East has the BEST NON-DIVISION winning percentage over the past 10 years largely due to the fact that the Pats fukk up everyone.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

good article.

i almost x'ed out of it when that clown wrote that it wasnt a coincidence the colts were 2nd because they used to be in the AFC east though. but listen..how many teams other than the patriots in that division have even won a playoff game during the time period? the jets those years and thats it? the best part about the afc east is that generally they havent had a TERRIBLE team in it. in that time period, most of the teams were at least average...the article makes some good points but im sorry nothing is going to convince me that the AFC east has been the best division since 2002.

If winning percentages don't do it, I don't know what will.

To me, the next thing to look at would be winning percentage of teams outside of their divisions over that time period. I don't have time to compile that, but that would be interesting to look at.

Regarding the lack of other teams winning playoff games that's, in large part, a by product of the Patriots dominating the division. They're typically only in the playoffs as a wild card on the road.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

How in the world does parity equal a better division? The NFC South has parity right now. If I have a big ass juggernaut in my division making everyone basically know they are starting every season 0-2, of course I am not going to look good. It does not mean that other divisions of equal mediocrity are better. What you do outside of your division is a much better barometer of how good your division is then what you do against each other. How many years have bum ass NFC East teams been overrated?

Seriously look at those other divisions in the AFC and then insert the Pats instead of their best team and tell me what you think would happen? But even if the AFC East were weak, what does that matter when the Pats beat up on everybody? The AFC East has the BEST NON-DIVISION winning percentage over the past 10 years largely due to the fact that the Pats fukk up everyone. I really have no idea what you are trying to prove.

Win % of the worst team
AFC EAST 33.33%
NFC EAST 33.33%
NFC SOUTH 29.17%
AFC SOUTH 28.13%
AFC NORTH 27.08%
AFC WEST 26.56%
NFC NORTH 24.74%
NFC WEST 23.44%

This is from the article. This goes to my point that they have had a terrible team weighing them down tied for the least often during this time period. If the AFC East is the best division altogether, how many playoff games were won during this time period by teams other than the Patriots?

Listen, I get what youre saying and see your argument..but the Patriots have been the best and most consistent in the league during this time period, the bolded says this. This is like putting the Walsh Niners in a different division. So what? Parity is routinely used by every league and every sport to gauge competitiveness. This year with the NFC South and when the Hawks won the NFC West does not show strength. It could be argued with the AFC North though. Each team has been pretty good, at least in spurts this year. However, parity and turnover over the long term is more important to a league parity coefficient because it shows that in every given year a team can go worst to first. It also shows that each division generally has the same pattern to records (as in 1 very good team 2 teams ranging from below average-good and 1 bad team). That pattern shows more strength and competitiveness than a bunch of teams in a division ranging from 9-7 to 7-9 each year, usually. Theres always the argument that dynasties may bring in more money to a league at times but Im sure the league would rather have a few different teams being great every once in a while and winning some playoff games to keep every fan base engaged than one team being historically great for over a decade and the rest of the teams being pretty good or average even when gifted easier schedules every year because of their league-wide standings.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

If winning percentages don't do it, I don't know what will.

To me, the next thing to look at would be winning percentage of teams outside of their divisions over that time period. I don't have time to compile that, but that would be interesting to look at.

Regarding the lack of other teams winning playoff games that's, in large part, a by product of the Patriots dominating the division. They're typically only in the playoffs as a wild card on the road.

But if they were legitimately better than their record...which is the crux of the argument that the AFC East sans the Patriots is the best division, then you would think they would win some of these games every once in a while.

Didnt the Packers win the SB as the 6 seed? Didnt the Patriots themselves make a run under Bledsoe to their first Super Bowl by winning on the road? The AFC East in the year of the GB-NE super bowl was far stronger than most incarnations since. You think the AFC East is stronger in this era compared to the Kelly/Marino era?

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

But if they were legitimately better than their record...which is the crux of the argument that the AFC East sans the Patriots is the best division, then you would think they would win some of these games every once in a while.

The Jets went to back to back AFC Championship games from the wild card spot

I'm done, breh. It's clear you're looking for any excuse not to accept what the facts are telling you.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The Jets went to back to back AFC Championship games from the wild card spot

I'm done, breh. It's clear you're looking for any excuse not to accept what the facts are telling you.

I already mentioned those Jets runs. Other than that there is next to, or absolutely nothing during this 12+ year span. Thats gotta be the least out of any division.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The Jets went to back to back AFC Championship games from the wild card spot

I'm done, breh. It's clear you're looking for any excuse not to accept what the facts are telling you.

There hasnt been one other team from the AFC East seen as a legitimate SB contender during this Brady era. Thats pathetic, sorry. Ask the fans of the Dolphins, Bills and Jets how they feel about how their organizations generally have been run since 2002.

The majority of all them would be status cuz they have all been beaten into submission.