The AFC East (2002-2013) - The weakest division in the NFL during the BB Era?

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Much has been made during the Patriots' tremendous run since BB took over the reigns over how weak the AFC East has been over that time.  It is thought by many detractors of the Patriots that they've run up big records against these weak opponents, and that has propelled them into the playoffs year after year.  But is it true?  Is it really the case that the AFC East has been the NFL's weakest division?
 
I will only use the years since the NFL went to the 8-division format, which means looking at 2002-2013.  Of course this leaves out one of the Pats' Super Bowl seasons, but oh well.  It's just easier this way.
 
First, I looked at each division's overall win total over this 12-year period:  (EDIT:  The first number here (401, 397, 395, etc) are the raw win totals.  I forgot to mention that)
 
1. AFCE - 401 (.522)
2. NFCE - 397 (.517)
3. NFCS - 395 (.514)
4. AFCS - 393 (.512)
5. AFCN - 390 (.508)
6. AFCW - 375 (.488)
7. NFCN - 368 (.479)
8. NFCW - 347 (.452)
 
Obviously, the AFC East's impressive top ranking is colored by the Patriots' success.  So here's the division winning percentages with NE out of the mixture (i.e., the AFCE just has NYJ, Mia, and Buf).
 
1. NFCE - .517
2. NFCS - .514
3. AFCS - .512
4. AFCN - .508
5. AFCW - .488
6. NFCN - .479
7. NFCW - .452
8. AFCE - .441
 
But these numbers are colored by New England hammering AFCE opponents.  So let's just go with each division's out-of-division games, with New England taken out of the mix.
 
1. NFCE - .527
2. NFCS - .523
3. AFCS - .519
4. AFCN - .513
5. AFCW - .481
6. NFCN - .467
7. AFCE - .464
8. NFCW - .423
*Note:  AFCE - .535 (with NE)
 
So yes, the AFC East has been one of the weaker divisions in the NFL during this time frame, which has undoubtedly benefitted the Patriots.  However, consider these numbers, focusing only on the Patriots.
 
- Overall win % (2002-2013):  .766 (averaging 12.3 wins a season)
- Overall non-division win %:  .750 (that would average 12.0 wins a season)
 
So being in the AFC East has helped the Patriots to the tune of 0.3 wins per season, hardly enough to register a blip on the radar.  If the Patriots had played all their games from 2002-2013 against non-division opponents, they would *still* be head-and-shoulders the best team in the NFL over that time frame.  In other words, while it is true that New England has played in a lesser division all these years, it hasn't mattered, because the Patriots have been obliterating the entire NFL despite playing first-place schedules year after year after year.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
41,130
Hingham, MA
Plus, the records of these other divisions all include the first place teams. If you remove the first place team's record for each year (or just remove the best cumulative team in each division for the 12 year sample), then all of the winning %s will go down and the AFC East will look even better.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
11,277
NOVA
Maybe Goodell in the interest of more balanced and competitive divisions will allow the Patriots to swap Miami out who has a .360 winning percentage vs. the BB-era Patriots for Pittsburgh who only has a .300 winning percentage or Indy and their .333 winning percentage.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The division being down in certain years helped some of their "weaker" teams as they likely wouldn't have finished with the best record in the division literally every year in a tougher division but conventional wisdom overstates the effect.  Your numbers even overstate the effect because you are removing NE's out of division record without removing the best record for the other divisions.  Not taking DVOA as an final word, but as a first order proxy the Jets were a good, top ten DVOA team from '09-'11 and the division was pretty tough during the Super Bowl winning years.
 
Your broader point is correct.  Again, not taking DVOA as an end all but as a useful first proxy (recent to nearest) 5th/3rd/3rd/1st/4th/9th with Matt Cassell/1st/3rd/12th/2nd/4th/7th/11th...division isn't going to matter much.   Last time they weren't a top 5 DVOA team with Brady healthy was 2005.
 
The BB/Brady recent regular season track record has been incredible.  Since '07, with Brady active, they've been beaten by more than one score exactly 3 times, most recently in week 9 of 2010.  They are competitive literally every single week no matter who the opponent.  Hard to argue division matters.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
11,277
NOVA
Stitch01 said:
The division being down in certain years helped some of their "weaker" teams as they likely wouldn't have finished with the best record in the division literally every year in a tougher division but conventional wisdom overstates the effect.  Your numbers even overstate the effect because you are removing NE's out of division record without removing the best record for the other divisions.  Not taking DVOA as an final word, but as a first order proxy the Jets were a good, top ten DVOA team from '09-'11 and the division was pretty tough during the Super Bowl winning years.
 
Your broader point is correct.  Again, not taking DVOA as an end all but as a useful first proxy (recent to nearest) 5th/3rd/3rd/1st/4th/9th with Matt Cassell/1st/3rd/12th/2nd/4th/7th/11th...division isn't going to matter much.   Last time they weren't a top 5 DVOA team with Brady healthy was 2005.
 
The BB/Brady recent regular season track record has been incredible.  Since '07, with Brady active, they've been beaten by more than one score exactly 3 times, most recently in week 9 of 2010.  They are competitive literally every single week no matter who the opponent.  Hard to argue division matters.
 
That is truly remarkable (a streak of 3.5 seasons!) and it's one thing a lot us around here tout that at least they friggin compete even when disadvantaged. As I watched that abysmal performance by Denver in this year's SB, I know I wasn't the only one wondering, "Say what you will about the Patriots and their chances of beating a team like the Seahawks but least they would compete and not get blown out."
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
5,246
Amstredam
riboflav said:
 
That is truly remarkable (a streak of 3.5 seasons!) and it's one thing a lot us around here tout that at least they friggin compete even when disadvantaged. As I watched that abysmal performance by Denver in this year's SB, I know I wasn't the only one wondering, "Say what you will about the Patriots and their chances of beating a team like the Seahawks but least they would compete and not get blown out."
The most memorable thing from the SB last year for me was none of the big plays. It was some time in the 3rd Q or at the end of the 2nd when Denver got a first down and Welker rushed up to the line trying to get back into the game and the rest of the team just looked beaten and had no urgency to run another play. They wanted to give up and Welker wanted to try to get back into the game.
 
I thought it showed where Welker came from and how the players are taught to play on the pats.
I am probably crazy and seeing things through Patriot colored glasses.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
10,171
Oakland
riboflav said:
 
That is truly remarkable (a streak of 3.5 seasons!) and it's one thing a lot us around here tout that at least they friggin compete even when disadvantaged. As I watched that abysmal performance by Denver in this year's SB, I know I wasn't the only one wondering, "Say what you will about the Patriots and their chances of beating a team like the Seahawks but least they would compete and not get blown out."
 
I agree, but it's certainly worth noting that, again, that streak is regular season only.  Each of the last 2 seasons, the Pats final game of the year was a loss by more than 1 score.  I doubt they would've laid down like Denver, but the Pats are certainly capable of being non-competitive in a playoff game.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
11,277
NOVA
Euclis20 said:
 
I agree, but it's certainly worth noting that, again, that streak is regular season only.  Each of the last 2 seasons, the Pats final game of the year was a loss by more than 1 score.  I doubt they would've laid down like Denver, but the Pats are certainly capable of being non-competitive in a playoff game.
 
That's true but there's a difference between by blown out (i.e. not competing) and what happened to the Patriots in the AFC title game. The Patriots were a failed 2-point conversion away from a one-score game with three minutes left in the 4th quarter. 
 

Bergs

don't Judge me
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
22,592
BigSoxFan said:
If Gronk isn't playing, sure.
 
Seriously. Not only is there zero doubt in my mind the Pats beat the Giants with a healthy Gronk, I have to believe they make at least one other SB appearance with a healthy Gronk.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yeah, I think the Pats were somewhat unlucky to not win a single Super Bowl from 2010-2012.  I think they had the most SB equity in the league over those three seasons by a fair amount.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Don't overthink this. It's the NFC West. It's not close. While the AFC East has been the 2nd weakest by SRS with the Patriots removed, the gap between the AFC East (7th) and NFC West (8th) is is the same size as the gap between the 3rd best division (NFC South) and the AFC East. Take out each divisions top team, and the AFC East ranks third.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
SeoulSoxFan said:
This completely makes up for picking Jets #7 on your predictions thread. Job well done, sir.
 
Heh.  Thanks.  Personally, I hope the Jets finish about 7-9.  Good enough for them to not get a top draft pick and good enough for them to *think* they're on the right track, but really, not good enough to make the playoffs.  Again.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
Jets - new coach
Bills - coach quits
Dolphins - should've replaced coach
 
In the last 12 years the three teams in the Pats division have won 10 games or more:
Buffalo - 0 times, no playoff appearances
NY JEts - 4 times, 6-6 in four playoff appearances
Miami - 2 times, 0-1 in one playoff appearance
 
You realize that these are three of the WORST teams in the league the last 12 years. Only the Jets, who have been a laughing stock, have even competed, albeit 4 of their wins came with Mark Sanchez at QB? The teams that have won 10 or more games 2x or less the last 12 years? (Cleveland-1, Detroit-2, Houston -2, Oakland-0, Stl-1, Tampa-2, Washington-2). of that group, only Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland and Tampa failed to win a playoff game like buffalo and Miami. So basically you are talking about two of the six least successful teams the last 12 years are in the AFC East. And the other is the Jets. the Pats are the best organization in the NFL but they have been challenged only one or two years to win their division and won fewer than four division games only twice. The other three franchises are at best bad and more likely amongst the worst run in the sport.
 
Finally, let's look at starting QBs. The only thing that matters these days is the quality of the QB.
Pats - Brady, Matt Cassell (1 year)
Buffalo - EJ Manual, Ryan Fitzpatrick, JP Losman, Trent Edwards, Drew Bledsoe
NYJEts - geno Smith, Mark Sanchez, Brett Favre (one year), Vinnie Testaverde (one year), Chad Pennington
Miami - Ryan Tannehill, Matt Moore (one year), chad henne, trent Green (1 year), chad pennington (one year), Cleo Lemon (1 year), Gus Frerotte (1 year), Joey Harrington (1 year), AJ Feeley...holy crap that is incredible
Its really hard to take any of these quarterbacks seriously. Favre was toast, Pennington was the best of this group by a long shot and couldn't throw the ball thirty yards down the field. Cassell might be the fourth best quarterback in the division the last 12 years. maybe Tannehill will be? 
 
in the last 12 years, the Pats won  the division 11 times, Miami once (Brady was hurt). Only four wild cards teams have come out of the division during that stretch, the Jets in 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2010. In those seasons, the Jets were only within one game of the Pats ONE TIME, meaning the Pats have only had one season where their division title was ever really at risk in the last weeks of the season. the other five divisions have been much more competitive and deep
AFC North - 3 different division winners at least 3x each, 9 wild card berths with 3 teams 3 times each
AFC South - 3 different division winners 2x or more each, 6 wild card berths from three different teams
AFC West - 3 different division winners 2x each or more, 5 wild card berths from 3 different teams
NFC East - all four teams won division, three of which won 3x or more;  8 WCard berths, all four teams did it 2x
NFC North - 3 different division winners at least 2x each; 6 wild card berths with 3 teams doing it 2x apiece
NFC South - all four teams won division at least 2x each; 5 wild card bids by 3 different teams
NFC West - all four teams won division with three winning it 2x or more apiece; 5 WC berths from all four teams
 
The AFC East is by far the least competitive and worst division in football the last twelve years when it comes to fielding competitive teams. The Jets are basically an average NFL team and Buffalo and Maimi are in the bottom 20% of teams in the NFL. This helps the Pats primarily because they rarely have to play meaningful games in decemeber, almost never have to worry about winning the division and almost always have at least one home game every year. Yes they are great, but they have a huge advantage playing with NYJ, Miami and Buffalo
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
GeorgeCostanza said:
Bastard. Beat me to it.
I too, wanted to go for the one liner. After he put so much thought into a post, I felt bad telling him that he is full of shit though.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,538
0-3 to 4-3
A front office person once told me that the thing about the Pats is that they basically have six scrimmages a season. They can roll their helmets out there and go 5-1. And the biggest advantage is that they can rest players in many of these games because usually the outcome of those games and the division is a foregone conclusion. He thought the rest was bigger than the wins, so far as it relates to the postseason.

I have no idea if he's right or wrong but he's forgotten more football than I'll ever know, and he has no bones to pick with the Pats. I'd love to read an article breaking down playing time for starters vs the rest of the AFC East.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,917
Oil Can Dan said:
A front office person once told me that the thing about the Pats is that they basically have six scrimmages a season. They can roll their helmets out there and go 5-1. And the biggest advantage is that they can rest players in many of these games because usually the outcome of those games and the division is a foregone conclusion. He thought the rest was bigger than the wins, so far as it relates to the postseason.

I have no idea if he's right or wrong but he's forgotten more football than I'll ever know, and he has no bones to pick with the Pats. I'd love to read an article breaking down playing time for starters vs the rest of the AFC East.
Is there ANY evidence that the Pats rest players in those games? I haven't looked but it sounds completely inaccurate. The Pats get crap for leaving their starters in and running up the score, not taking people out. BB never looks past an opponent and hates to take his foot off the gas. I think it's wrong.

That said I think the point that the Pats have had a very easy division schedule is certainly correct. But it's only part of the story.

There are some better analyses out there than number of QB's and head coaches and such. The best is looking at out of division records for each team/division for a big sample (such as a decade). You can also remove the top team in each division to compare what the Pats have faced to other top teams.

Another suggestion is looking at strength of schedule by team which is probably reasonably accurate with a large sample. I can remember years the Pats had it easy but also many years the Pats had it tougher than average.

One thing to keep in mind is that because the Pats win the division every year they play the other #1 seeds in the AFC every year too. There's a reason they always play Peyton Manning and only play the Browns, Raiders, and Jaguars once every three years each.

I'm not motivated to do it but both are better ways of looking at what I think Clears is looking for...how much of Pats' success is easy schedule.

Edit: finally there's the question of how much it matters. The Pats have probably lost an average of 3-4 games a year for the past decade. Usually one of those is a division game, one is a hiccup against an inferior team, and one is a close loss against one of the tough teams in their schedule. But I'd guess they have big time winning records against the playoff teams nearly every year.

In other words I'm not sure how much it would even matter.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,290
Go f*ck yourself
I read it in a thread somewhere on here, hell might even be this thread but I'm a little tipsy, that the pats winning pct is the same out of division as it is in division. That means something right?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
49,539
Here
There have to be websites with adjusted strength of schedule, right? Football Reference probably has them. That should answer the question well enough. I will check tomorrow when I am not struggling to stay awake until midnight to prove to myself that I am not old. I would also be stunned to find that Pats rested starters against division opponents. If anything, BB puts a bigger emphasis on division games.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,557
Against Buffalo this season, the Pats lost Ridley and Mayo for the season.  Just one example, but I've seen zero evidence that the Pats rest their starters against divisional opponents.  I think anyone taking such a premise seriously needs to present solid evidence.  
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Some updated numbers.  Since 2002 (when the league went to this current format)….
 
Total Win% by division (2002-2014):
AFCE:  .522
AFCN:  .514
AFCS:  .502
AFCW:  .490
NFCE:  .516
NFCN:  .483
NFCS:  .501
NFCW:  .462
AFCE (minus NE):  .441
 
Total non-divisional game Win% by division (2002-2014):
AFCE:  .527
AFCN:  .515
AFCS:  .496
AFCW:  .477
NFCE:  .517
NFCN:  .466
NFCS:  .494
NFCW:  .432
AFCE (minus NE):  .455
 
So the AFC East has been the strongest division in football, when you include the Patriots, who obviously have been far and away the best team in football over this time frame.  So removing them removes a major piece of what makes the division tremendous.  
 
NE Win%
- In divisional games:  .782
- In non-divisional games:  .754
 
So the Patriots have actually seen their winning % go up a little by playing in the AFC East.  But still, their average season against non-divisional opponents would average out to a 12-4 season.
 
Ridiculous.
 
And this is against a first place schedule every year.  Which means very little in any given year, but if year-in and year-out your two "by standings" games are always against the top teams in the division, that adds up over a 13 year time span.  That's 26 games playing tough teams, compared to, say, what the Jaguars have to play every year.  
 
In other words, while it's true that the AFC East has been a weak division, the Patriots have absolutely CRUSHED non-divisional opponents to a preposterous degree.  It really does render the "Well the AFC East is lousy" argument moot.  Except for this one thing, perhaps:  It means that the Patriots basically cruise to the division title every year.  Other times, other divisions have two teams with 11-12 wins, fighting for the division championship.  The Patriots really haven't had to deal with that.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
14,112
São Paulo - Brazil
ivanvamp said:
Some updated numbers.  Since 2002 (when the league went to this current format)….
 
Total Win% by division (2002-2014):
AFCE:  .522
AFCN:  .514
AFCS:  .502
AFCW:  .490
NFCE:  .516
NFCN:  .483
NFCS:  .501
NFCW:  .462
AFCE (minus NE):  .441
 
Total non-divisional game Win% by division (2002-2014):
AFCE:  .527
AFCN:  .515
AFCS:  .496
AFCW:  .477
NFCE:  .517
NFCN:  .466
NFCS:  .494
NFCW:  .432
AFCE (minus NE):  .455
 
So the AFC East has been the strongest division in football, when you include the Patriots, who obviously have been far and away the best team in football over this time frame.  So removing them removes a major piece of what makes the division tremendous.  
 
NE Win%
- In divisional games:  .782
- In non-divisional games:  .754
 
So the Patriots have actually seen their winning % go up a little by playing in the AFC East.  But still, their average season against non-divisional opponents would average out to a 12-4 season.
 
Ridiculous.
 
And this is against a first place schedule every year.  Which means very little in any given year, but if year-in and year-out your two "by standings" games are always against the top teams in the division, that adds up over a 13 year time span.  That's 26 games playing tough teams, compared to, say, what the Jaguars have to play every year.  
 
In other words, while it's true that the AFC East has been a weak division, the Patriots have absolutely CRUSHED non-divisional opponents to a preposterous degree.  It really does render the "Well the AFC East is lousy" argument moot.  Except for this one thing, perhaps:  It means that the Patriots basically cruise to the division title every year.  Other times, other divisions have two teams with 11-12 wins, fighting for the division championship.  The Patriots really haven't had to deal with that.
Would be nice to see the winning percentage for the other divisions with the division winner excluded from the calculations too. My guess is the AFCE sans the Pats wouldn't be such an outlier then.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
rodderick said:
Would be nice to see the winning percentage for the other divisions with the division winner excluded from the calculations too. My guess is the AFCE sans the Pats wouldn't be such an outlier then.
I had the same thought, but would it be more representative to exclude the single best team over the period from each division (considering that it is only the AFCE where "best overall" is the same as "division winner every season").

My other, albeit unrelated, thought was what is the Pats record over the period against only the two other division winners (i.e. The games that don't line up with the two other division matchups).
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Oil Can Dan said:
A front office person once told me that the thing about the Pats is that they basically have six scrimmages a season. They can roll their helmets out there and go 5-1. And the biggest advantage is that they can rest players in many of these games because usually the outcome of those games and the division is a foregone conclusion. He thought the rest was bigger than the wins, so far as it relates to the postseason.

I have no idea if he's right or wrong but he's forgotten more football than I'll ever know, and he has no bones to pick with the Pats. I'd love to read an article breaking down playing time for starters vs the rest of the AFC East.
 
IIRC correctly you have some buddies in the Giants organization, right? For the past decade or so I don't think you can claim Dallas/Washington/Eagles is much more challenging than Jets/Bills/Dolphins.  
 

1918stabbedbyfoulke

New Member
Aug 10, 2005
419
Stitch01 said:
The division being down in certain years helped some of their "weaker" teams as they likely wouldn't have finished with the best record in the division literally every year in a tougher division but conventional wisdom overstates the effect.  Your numbers even overstate the effect because you are removing NE's out of division record without removing the best record for the other divisions.  Not taking DVOA as an final word, but as a first order proxy the Jets were a good, top ten DVOA team from '09-'11 and the division was pretty tough during the Super Bowl winning years.
 
Your broader point is correct.  Again, not taking DVOA as an end all but as a useful first proxy (recent to nearest) 5th/3rd/3rd/1st/4th/9th with Matt Cassell/1st/3rd/12th/2nd/4th/7th/11th...division isn't going to matter much.   Last time they weren't a top 5 DVOA team with Brady healthy was 2005.
 
The BB/Brady recent regular season track record has been incredible.  Since '07, with Brady active, they've been beaten by more than one score exactly 3 times, most recently in week 9 of 2010.  They are competitive literally every single week no matter who the opponent.  Hard to argue division matters.
 
Forgive me if I am missing something, but the first two losses this season were each by more than one score. Miami, 33-20 and KC, 41-14.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
1918stabbedbyfoulke said:
 
Forgive me if I am missing something, but the first two losses this season were each by more than one score. Miami, 33-20 and KC, 41-14.
 
You're missing the date of his post.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
rodderick said:
Would be nice to see the winning percentage for the other divisions with the division winner excluded from the calculations too. My guess is the AFCE sans the Pats wouldn't be such an outlier then.
 
Over the 13 year time frame, here is the overall (division + non-divisional games) winning percentages of each division *minus the top team*.  That is, each year, I'm looking at the winning percentage of the bottom three teams in the division.
 
AFCE:  .444
AFCN:  .444
AFCS:  .421
AFCW:  .412
NFCE:  .455
NFCN:  .410
NFCS:  .433
NFCW:  .394
 
So by this standard, the AFC East has been the second toughest division to play in when the top teams in each division are removed.  And that seems like a more fair comparison, obviously.  It's just that the Patriots have been SO dominant, that they are pretty much the only team in the AFC East that is at the top.  In every other division, there have been many different division winners over that time frame.  In the case of the AFC East, NE has *always* had the top record.  They just missed out on the division title due to tiebreakers in 2002 and 2008.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
37,816
ivanvamp said:
 
Over the 13 year time frame, here is the overall (division + non-divisional games) winning percentages of each division *minus the top team*.  That is, each year, I'm looking at the winning percentage of the bottom three teams in the division.
 
AFCE:  .444
AFCN:  .444
AFCS:  .421
AFCW:  .412
NFCE:  .455
NFCN:  .410
NFCS:  .433
NFCW:  .394
 
So by this standard, the AFC East has been the second toughest division to play in when the top teams in each division are removed.  And that seems like a more fair comparison, obviously.  It's just that the Patriots have been SO dominant, that they are pretty much the only team in the AFC East that is at the top.  In every other division, there have been many different division winners over that time frame.  In the case of the AFC East, NE has *always* had the top record.  They just missed out on the division title due to tiebreakers in 2002 and 2008.
When people say the AFCE has been weak during the Pats' run, I think they're saying it's unusual that none of the other three teams in the division assembled a contender (aside from the Jets in the early Rex years, which were better by DVOA and postseason record than by regular-season record). On the flip side, there weren't many truly execrable teams in the division during that period, at least until the past year or two. So the rest of the division has been essentially average by W-L, but hasn't presented the Pats with many (or really any) situations where winning the division required a 13-win season. That's an advantage , but not as big of one as is commonly supposed
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,538
0-3 to 4-3
Shelterdog said:
 
IIRC correctly you have some buddies in the Giants organization, right? For the past decade or so I don't think you can claim Dallas/Washington/Eagles is much more challenging than Jets/Bills/Dolphins.  
 
Yup, it's someone in Giants organization.
 
This guy is not a Patriot hater and used to be pretty good friends with Belichick when they both worked for the Giants. I know he has all the respect in the world for him. I think he would point out that you play the schedule that's put in front of you and that's all you can do, but he did make that comment to me a couple years back and I found it interesting.
 
I didn't take it to mean that the Pats would sit a perfectly healthy Brady or someone but more that if you had a player that was iffy that they'd take the opportunity to rest that player vs one of the shitty AFC East teams. Teams do the same vs non-division shitty teams all the time I think.  Just seems to me that he was trying to point out that the Pats generally have had six shitty opponents locked in to their schedule every year for awhile.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
38,135
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Oil Can Dan said:
 
Yup, it's someone in Giants organization.
 
This guy is not a Patriot hater and used to be pretty good friends with Belichick when they both worked for the Giants. I know he has all the respect in the world for him. I think he would point out that you play the schedule that's put in front of you and that's all you can do, but he did make that comment to me a couple years back and I found it interesting.
 
I didn't take it to mean that the Pats would sit a perfectly healthy Brady or someone but more that if you had a player that was iffy that they'd take the opportunity to rest that player vs one of the shitty AFC East teams. Teams do the same vs non-division shitty teams all the time I think.  Just seems to me that he was trying to point out that the Pats generally have had six shitty opponents locked in to their schedule every year for awhile.
 
 
I'm sure your guy knows a billion times more football than any of us here save Otto, but that comment is total bullshit to anyone's who's closely followed the team all these years. The Pats don't rest players against divisional opponents and don't generally hold anything back in such games because the intimate familiarity the teams have with each other means that the games are often close and bitterly-fought affairs despite any record gaps.
 
The only times the Pats have gone easy in games is in Week 17 if they have everything lined up and there's no point to risking injury.
 
Look, the divisional strength argument as a way to knock the Pats' unprecented success is horribly flawed. The Pats have won at pretty much the exact same rate outside of the division as in it. Period. End of story, your argument has been rendered null and void. If the Pats had it easy by kicking the hell out of St Mary's School for Girls 6 times a year you'd expect their record against "real" football teams to be far worse than their divisional record. It isn't. Therefor the division argument is bullshit. Full stop.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,538
0-3 to 4-3
Okay. But who's to say they win those non-divisional games at the same rate if their divisional games were tougher contests?
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
 
I'm sure your guy knows a billion times more football than any of us here save Otto, but that comment is total bullshit to anyone's who's closely followed the team all these years. The Pats don't rest players against divisional opponents and don't generally hold anything back in such games because the intimate familiarity the teams have with each other means that the games are often close and bitterly-fought affairs despite any record gaps.
 
The only times the Pats have gone easy in games is in Week 17 if they have everything lined up and there's no point to risking injury.
 
Look, the divisional strength argument as a way to knock the Pats' unprecented success is horribly flawed. The Pats have won at pretty much the exact same rate outside of the division as in it. Period. End of story, your argument has been rendered null and void. If the Pats had it easy by kicking the hell out of St Mary's School for Girls 6 times a year you'd expect their record against "real" football teams to be far worse than their divisional record. It isn't. Therefor the division argument is bullshit. Full stop.
 
It's definitely flawed, but it's not total bullshit. During that time frame, the Patriots missed the playoffs despite finishing with a winning record only twice (2002 and 2008). In any other division, it's possible that it would have happened another one or two times. Particularly in 2005 and 2009, when they finished 10-6. In 2005, a 10-6 Chiefs team missed the playoffs. In 2009, a 9-7 Falcons team missed the playoffs (and would have missed it even if they'd finished 10-6). All things are not equal, so one can't simply say, "if the Patriots were in another division, they would have missed the playoffs x number of times," but I think this reaction is a little defensive.
 
To be honest, I understand why you would get defensive about it. Saying the AFC East is the weakest division in football is kind of like poking the bear - you're going to get a strong response. I think a more productive statement, if you're looking for a real debate, would be to say that there is a lack of parity in the AFC East. Personally, I think that's probably two-thirds Pats dominance, one-third Bills/Dolphins/Jets futility.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
38,135
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Oil Can Dan said:
Okay. But who's to say they win those non-divisional games at the same rate if their divisional games were tougher contests?
 
That's complete speculation and framed in exactly the way to denigrate what the team has accomplished. There's no way to know, so let's cast aspersions.
 
Their record is their record. They've beaten the hell out of non-divisional opponents (who under this theory aren't as soft as the divisional ones) at exactly the same rate. Honestly the conclusion to make from that is that the whole league sucks, not just the AFC East, if you're hell-bent on painting the division as a cakewalk.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
38,135
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Bosoxen said:
 
It's definitely flawed, but it's not total bullshit. During that time frame, the Patriots missed the playoffs despite finishing with a winning record only twice (2002 and 2008). In any other division, it's possible that it would have happened another one or two times. Particularly in 2005 and 2009, when they finished 10-6. In 2005, a 10-6 Chiefs team missed the playoffs. In 2009, a 9-7 Falcons team missed the playoffs (and would have missed it even if they'd finished 10-6). All things are not equal, so one can't simply say, "if the Patriots were in another division, they would have missed the playoffs x number of times," but I think this reaction is a little defensive.
 
To be honest, I understand why you would get defensive about it. Saying the AFC East is the weakest division in football is kind of like poking the bear - you're going to get a strong response. I think a more productive statement, if you're looking for a real debate, would be to say that there is a lack of parity in the AFC East. Personally, I think that's probably two-thirds Pats dominance, one-third Bills/Dolphins/Jets futility.
 
Lack of parity, maybe. But the point made above about other divisions just rotating the good/sucky teams on a regular basis is a good one.
 
I mean, look at the NFC East, the division that assclowns like Breer like to hold up as some sort of paragon of quality. The worst team in the NFC East had a 4-12 record this year, same as the worst team in the AFC East. In 2013, the worst team in the NFC East went 3-13, the worst in the AFC East went....6-10. In 2012, the worst team in the NFC East went 4-12, in the AFCE they went 6-10. In 2011, the worst team in the NFC East went 5-11; the worst team in the AFCE went 6-10. In 2009 the worst team in the NFC East went 4-12, the worst in the AFCE went 6-10. The only year since Brady's injury that that this wasn't the situation was 2010 (Bills went 4-12, Washington went 6-10). 
 
There's almost always one really shitty team in the NFC East. The worst team in the AFC East has usually been nowhere near that bad. Yes, this is just a quick and crude look, but it's instructive I think to show how the assumption that the division must suck because the Pats win it all the time is flawed.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Bullshit or not generally, the supporting argument that they rest regulars is a complete fabrication.

It just does not happen. Hence the mild surprise when Gronk was deactivated last Sunday.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,538
0-3 to 4-3
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
That's complete speculation and framed in exactly the way to denigrate what the team has accomplished. There's no way to know, so let's cast aspersions.
 
Their record is their record. They've beaten the hell out of non-divisional opponents (who under this theory aren't as soft as the divisional ones) at exactly the same rate. Honestly the conclusion to make from that is that the whole league sucks, not just the AFC East, if you're hell-bent on painting the division as a cakewalk.
I'm not hell bent on anything.  I have no dog in this fight, and neither does my guy.  It's all just opinion because as you say, it's all speculation to a large degree.  As I said in my first post on this thread, I wish there were some analytics on player games missed vs divisional opponents over this period of time.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,959
02130
Oil Can Dan said:
Okay. But who's to say they win those non-divisional games at the same rate if their divisional games were tougher contests?
But they have had tougher out-of-division games than most teams due to always finishing first and it hasn't affected their divisional games.
 
I tend to think that 70-80% of NFL teams each year are pretty tough and just judge teams on their record, especially over a long period like we're doing. There are always 12 playoff teams, plus 5-6 teams who would have made the playoffs if they had just made a couple field goals or converted a couple 4th downs, and then another few who have weaknesses but have some strength like a great defensive line that can take over a game if you let it. There aren't a lot of games that you can take the week off for even in a bad division.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Lack of parity, maybe. But the point made above about other divisions just rotating the good/sucky teams on a regular basis is a good one.
 
I mean, look at the NFC East, the division that assclowns like Breer like to hold up as some sort of paragon of quality. The worst team in the NFC East had a 4-12 record this year, same as the worst team in the AFC East. In 2013, the worst team in the NFC East went 3-13, the worst in the AFC East went....6-10. In 2012, the worst team in the NFC East went 4-12, in the AFCE they went 6-10. In 2011, the worst team in the NFC East went 5-11; the worst team in the AFCE went 6-10. In 2009 the worst team in the NFC East went 4-12, the worst in the AFCE went 6-10. The only year since Brady's injury that that this wasn't the situation was 2010 (Bills went 4-12, Washington went 6-10). 
 
There's almost always one really shitty team in the NFC East. The worst team in the AFC East has usually been nowhere near that bad. Yes, this is just a quick and crude look, but it's instructive I think to show how the assumption that the division must suck because the Pats win it all the time is flawed.
 
I think the problem with looking at the bottom of the division, vs the top of it, is that a lot of times teams finish with sub five-win records because they're rebuilding (and they get slaughtered by the teams that aren't). Outside of Washington and the Dave Campo Cowboys, the NFC East has seen occasional rebuilding periods, which would explain why some years 10-6 runs away with the division, but in others 10-6 means an early offseason. That's why I think it's more instructive to use the term "parity". It's not that the AFC East is weak compared to its peers, it's that the other teams in the division don't jump up and knock the Patriots off their perch on a more regular basis. The reason for that is far more complex than simply "the AFC East sucks".
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,714
Oil Can Dan said:
I'm not hell bent on anything.  I have no dog in this fight, and neither does my guy.  It's all just opinion because as you say, it's all speculation to a large degree.  As I said in my first post on this thread, I wish there were some analytics on player games missed vs divisional opponents over this period of time.
It is pure speculation with no evidence to back it up.

One could just as easily state the Pats can't or don't rest players in division games as much as others. If they could they'd have an even better overall record.

That would be just as valid as your guys theory.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,089
Mansfield MA
Oil Can Dan said:
I'm not hell bent on anything.  I have no dog in this fight, and neither does my guy.  It's all just opinion because as you say, it's all speculation to a large degree.  As I said in my first post on this thread, I wish there were some analytics on player games missed vs divisional opponents over this period of time.
I don't have a full set of data (and I'm not sure whether you'd be able to tease this out statistically), but looking at the past couple years there doesn't seem to be any validity to what you (or your friend) is saying. This year, the most significant non-season-ending injury the Pats had was Chandler Jones missing six games. He returned for practice before the road games with Green Bay and San Diego, but didn't play in a game until Miami Week 15. That's the opposite of what we'd expect if your friend is right. Last year, Gronk missed the first six games, including contests versus playoff teams Weeks 5 (Cincinnati) and 6 (Atlanta). He returned for the Jets game Week 7 - again, the opposite of what you're saying. Two is a tiny sample size, but as far as I can tell the Patriots don't have the pattern you describe. I can appreciate that it sounds plausible because your friend is impartial, but impartial doesn't mean right, of course.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,917
Oil Can Dan said:
I'm not hell bent on anything.  I have no dog in this fight, and neither does my guy.  It's all just opinion because as you say, it's all speculation to a large degree.  As I said in my first post on this thread, I wish there were some analytics on player games missed vs divisional opponents over this period of time.
I believe you don't have an agenda. I believe your guy knows a ton about the nfl including all sorts of stuff we're not privy to.

With regards to the resting players, you don't need analytics. You can research it all you want, we can tell you without looking just by following this team that it's bullshit. It just doesn't happen. The Pats don't rest healthy players against division opponents. They put MVP caliber TE's on PAT protection units. They absolutely do not take the division lightly.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Oil Can Dan said:
 
Yup, it's someone in Giants organization.
 
This guy is not a Patriot hater and used to be pretty good friends with Belichick when they both worked for the Giants. I know he has all the respect in the world for him. I think he would point out that you play the schedule that's put in front of you and that's all you can do, but he did make that comment to me a couple years back and I found it interesting.
 
I didn't take it to mean that the Pats would sit a perfectly healthy Brady or someone but more that if you had a player that was iffy that they'd take the opportunity to rest that player vs one of the shitty AFC East teams. Teams do the same vs non-division shitty teams all the time I think.  Just seems to me that he was trying to point out that the Pats generally have had six shitty opponents locked in to their schedule every year for awhile.
 
I don't think that's true. Say the league generally has about 10 good teams, 12 average teams, and 10 shitty ones.  Most of the time the AFC East has one good team (the Pats), two average ones, and one shitty one.  Sometimes it has two good ones--like when the Jets were hot--and sometimes it has two or three shitty ones (2007 comes to mind) but generally two of Miami, Buffalo and the Jets are pretty close to .500.  Maybe it's not the hardest but it's not like you can take it easy in games against Miami and Buffalo this year, at least not before week 17.
 
What is funky about the division is that the average teams haven't been like, for example, the Saints or Cowboys or Pittsburgh or Giants--teams that have been average or below average an awful lot over the past decade but also have great years interspersed in there. I think this lets us overestimate other divisions and underestimate our own just because we assume that historically good teams are in fact consistently tough when that's just not true.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,958
I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss the illusion of parity in the NFL, but how unusual is New England's run of division titles?
From 2002-2014, here's a list of teams (one per division, except the AFC west and NFC south) with the most division titles across that span.
 
Patriots - 11
Colts - 9
Packers - 8
Seahawks - 7
Eagles - 6
Steelers - 6
Chargers/Broncos - (5 per team)
Panthers - 4

Ironically, only the NFC south has a uniform distribution of division titles. For the remaining 91 division titles (7 titles per year for 13 years), 52 of them were achieved by a single team within the division. In four of the divisions, more than half (~71 percent in total) of the division titles were achieved by a single team. The Patriots are a slight statistical outlier, but not by much.
 
Most divisions have had consistent bottom feeders more so than consistent top performers. Below are the teams with the greater number of bottom place finishes per division (number of seasons with 4 or less wins in parentheses; including seasons where they were not bottom):
 
Browns - 10 (5)
Redskins - 8 (3)
Bills - 7 (1)
Bucs - 7 (5)
Rams - 6 (4)
Jaguars - 6 (3)*
Raiders - 6 (6)*
Lions - 6 (6)

*Jaguars had two seasons with 4 wins or below but were not the bottom team in the AFC south. The raiders had one season with 4 wins or below but were not the bottom team in the AFC west

To me, what stands out is that the AFC east has had very few consistently awful teams from year to year, which makes the 13 year run by the Pats so much more impressive than the Colts or Packers. Out of the 52 records examined (4 teams for 13 years), 6 were four or fewer wins. The NFC east is slightly better with only 5 four or fewer wins. The remaining divisions have had 8 (AFC north and NFC west) ,9 (AFC/NFC south), or 10 (AFC west and NFC north) records with four or fewer wins.
In other words, in terms of weak opponents, our division has been most similar to the NFC east; which is to say that there have been very few freebies over the past thirteen years. Despite this, the patriots have amassed 11 division titles. The AFC north, despite the browns, has had fewer awful teams than the south or west. By coincidence, the number of poor records is consistent with SB berths; the AFC west and NFC north have a combined 4 SB berths over the past 12 years. The AFC east/north and NFC west have had 4 apiece (NFC east/south have had three).
 
In any case, there is less parity in the NFL than one would think in a league with a SSS of 16 games. However, that lack of parity is more apparent at the bottom than at the top, and the AFC east has had more parity in the bottom three than the average NFL division. Such facts make the patriots run even more impressive, not less.

EDIT: I selected 4 or fewer wins because 30-40% of a W-L record in a 16 game season is likely due to factors outside of team strength. Even a 6-10 team may be above average, but a 4-12 team is almost always below average or worse. See here for an example.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
amarshal2 said:
I believe you don't have an agenda. I believe your guy knows a ton about the nfl including all sorts of stuff we're not privy to.

With regards to the resting players, you don't need analytics. You can research it all you want, we can tell you without looking just by following this team that it's bullshit. It just doesn't happen. The Pats don't rest healthy players against division opponents. They put MVP caliber TE's on PAT protection units. They absolutely do not take the division lightly.
 
It's so hard to tell who's truly healthy.  For example, Blount, Edelman, Arrington and Connolly sat out against the Jets this year, none with season-ending injuries (Blount played the next week and Arrington was apparently ready to play but his e had a kid the next week). All were banged up to some extent but how many of those guys would have played if it was a tougher or more important game? I have no earthly idea and  I don't think there's any way that we as fans can distinguish between situations where a guy could have played but got extra time and situations where the player just wasn't healthy enough to play at a high level.