Patriots' Recent "Success" Due To Weak Division?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     


    by any chance, do you have the same breakdown from 2000-2004, and from 2005-2012. I'm just curious. Good info.

     



    Let's see if this formats correctly.  If you notice a discrepancy from my earlier numbers, it's because I had forgotten that 2001 was the last year under the previous alignment; I've therefore counted the 2-0 vs. Indy as "common" AFC opponent, and the 1-2 vs. Cin/SD/Den as "uncommon", and corrected their NFC record to 4-1.

     

    '01-'04                  '05-'12
    48-16 (.750)     Total    98-30 (.766)
     17-7 (.708)     AFCE     40-8  (.833)
      7-1 (.875)      BUF     15-1  (.938)
      5-3 (.625)      MIA     12-4  (.750)
      5-3 (.625)      NYJ     13-3  (.813)
     
     31-9 (.775)   non-AFCE   58-22 (.725)
     14-3 (.824)      NFC     26-6  (.813)
     12-2 (.833)  common AFC  22-10 (.688)
      5-4 (.555) uncommon AFC 10-6  (.625)

     



    So, would it be fair to say that the Patriots did better in their own division AFTER their superbowl years? And, again, I'm not saying it's anyones fault.  It is what it is - and the Patriots still have to play the games. But is their division dominance due to them being that good - or because the dolphins, bills, and jets are just that bad?

     

    If we concede that "all teams are equal" and "all teams are good" - then I guess one could conclude that they really are that good.  If the Patriots division rivals stink, then certainly they are benefitting from the situation. But both scenarios can't be true at the same time.....




    No.  The '01-'04 record suffers for including the 2002 season, by far the worst Pats season in the entire run.  In a small sample size (such as only 4 seasons), a single outlier severely skews results.  Excluding that season, their AFCE winning % (.778) is nearly identical to '05-'12.

    Also, the fact that they win at a ridiculously high clip outside the division also, blows away the theory that they are a product of a "bad" division.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     


    by any chance, do you have the same breakdown from 2000-2004, and from 2005-2012. I'm just curious. Good info.

     



    Let's see if this formats correctly.  If you notice a discrepancy from my earlier numbers, it's because I had forgotten that 2001 was the last year under the previous alignment; I've therefore counted the 2-0 vs. Indy as "common" AFC opponent, and the 1-2 vs. Cin/SD/Den as "uncommon", and corrected their NFC record to 4-1.

     

    '01-'04                  '05-'12
    48-16 (.750)     Total    98-30 (.766)
     17-7 (.708)     AFCE     40-8  (.833)
      7-1 (.875)      BUF     15-1  (.938)
      5-3 (.625)      MIA     12-4  (.750)
      5-3 (.625)      NYJ     13-3  (.813)
     
     31-9 (.775)   non-AFCE   58-22 (.725)
     14-3 (.824)      NFC     26-6  (.813)
     12-2 (.833)  common AFC  22-10 (.688)
      5-4 (.555) uncommon AFC 10-6  (.625)

     



    So, would it be fair to say that the Patriots did better in their own division AFTER their superbowl years? And, again, I'm not saying it's anyones fault.  It is what it is - and the Patriots still have to play the games. But is their division dominance due to them being that good - or because the dolphins, bills, and jets are just that bad?

     

    If we concede that "all teams are equal" and "all teams are good" - then I guess one could conclude that they really are that good.  If the Patriots division rivals stink, then certainly they are benefitting from the situation. But both scenarios can't be true at the same time.....

     




    No.  The '01-'04 record suffers for including the 2002 season, by far the worst Pats season in the entire run.  In a small sample size (such as only 4 seasons), a single outlier severely skews results.  Excluding that season, their AFCE winning % (.778) is nearly identical to '05-'12.

     

    Also, the fact that they win at a ridiculously high clip outside the division also, blows away the theory that they are a product of a "bad" division.



    and what happens if we remove all the games from 2008 when the Patriots did not make the playoffs?

    Besides, I'm not tying the Patriots "success" exclusively to their division record.  I'm saying there are perks that they are recipients of if they indeed are playing in a weaker division, namely higher seeding.

    how do the Patriots compare with other teams when comparing won-loss records vs. teams with winning record vs. losing record? Possibly looking at the same time periods. Just wondering, I don't expect someone to come up w/ numbers.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to MattC05's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     


    by any chance, do you have the same breakdown from 2000-2004, and from 2005-2012. I'm just curious. Good info.

     



    Let's see if this formats correctly.  If you notice a discrepancy from my earlier numbers, it's because I had forgotten that 2001 was the last year under the previous alignment; I've therefore counted the 2-0 vs. Indy as "common" AFC opponent, and the 1-2 vs. Cin/SD/Den as "uncommon", and corrected their NFC record to 4-1.

     

    '01-'04                  '05-'12
    48-16 (.750)     Total    98-30 (.766)
     17-7 (.708)     AFCE     40-8  (.833)
      7-1 (.875)      BUF     15-1  (.938)
      5-3 (.625)      MIA     12-4  (.750)
      5-3 (.625)      NYJ     13-3  (.813)
     
     31-9 (.775)   non-AFCE   58-22 (.725)
     14-3 (.824)      NFC     26-6  (.813)
     12-2 (.833)  common AFC  22-10 (.688)
      5-4 (.555) uncommon AFC 10-6  (.625)

     



    So, would it be fair to say that the Patriots did better in their own division AFTER their superbowl years? And, again, I'm not saying it's anyones fault.  It is what it is - and the Patriots still have to play the games. But is their division dominance due to them being that good - or because the dolphins, bills, and jets are just that bad?

     

    If we concede that "all teams are equal" and "all teams are good" - then I guess one could conclude that they really are that good.  If the Patriots division rivals stink, then certainly they are benefitting from the situation. But both scenarios can't be true at the same time.....

     




    No.  The '01-'04 record suffers for including the 2002 season, by far the worst Pats season in the entire run.  In a small sample size (such as only 4 seasons), a single outlier severely skews results.  Excluding that season, their AFCE winning % (.778) is nearly identical to '05-'12.

     

    Also, the fact that they win at a ridiculously high clip outside the division also, blows away the theory that they are a product of a "bad" division.

     



    and what happens if we remove all the games from 2008 when the Patriots did not make the playoffs?

     

    Besides, I'm not tying the Patriots "success" exclusively to their division record.  I'm saying there are perks that they are recipients of if they indeed are playing in a weaker division, namely higher seeding.

    how do the Patriots compare with other teams when comparing won-loss records vs. teams with winning record vs. losing record? Possibly looking at the same time periods. Just wondering, I don't expect someone to come up w/ numbers.




    And everybody is telling you your premise has no merit and should be discarded. Look at the stats you seem to appreciate. They state that the AFC East is better than all of the NFC. How can you possibly say a division is weak when it has a better record than a whole conference. That leaves only three other divisions that could be as good or better than the AFC East.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    And everybody is telling you your premise has no merit and should be discarded. Look at the stats you seem to appreciate. They state that the AFC East is better than all of the NFC. How can you possibly say a division is weak when it has a better record than a whole conference. That leaves only three other divisions that could be as good or better than the AFC East.

     



    umm, ...the "stats" don't show the AFC East record vs. everyone else....lol.  That was funny.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to JohnHannahrulz's comment:

    The Pats brass cannot be held accountable for other teams in the division being weaker or simply worse.



    Maybe just a bit. 

    BB prefers to steal players from division rivals, first because they play harder against their old teams, second because it slightly weakens the rivals and picking up an extra chance to win two games is useful. 

    BB prefers to make strategic draft picks right in front of division rivals.  He'll leapfrog up if needed.  He'll trade down until he's right in front of a rival.  The classic trade-down was dropping from first round pick #22 to #28, right in front of the Jets' #30, and then picking a cornerback that the Jets really could have used.  Devin McCourty at #28 continues to start and he's one of the best free safeties in the league.  The Jets had to settle for #30 Kyle Mini-Me Wilson, who might be forced to start at cornerback if the team is desperate in September.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/patriots/content/20120102-despite-finishing-13-3-pats-havent-beaten-a-team-with-winning-record.ece

     

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/no-quality-wins-for-patriots-playoff-fail/12867/

     

    this stuck out for me:

    "Fact #12: The team that was more “battle tested” (i.e. played more games against QO’s during the regular season) only won 37.7% of the playoff games. 17.7% of the games were played by teams with the same amount of QO’s, and the team that was least “battle tested”(played fewer games against QO’s), well they won 44.6% of the playoff games.

     
    Eleven teams have played 10 or 11 games against QO’s in a season. They went 11-10 (.524) in the playoffs. Meanwhile our group of 7 teams that played only one or two games against QO’s, they went 14-3 (.824) in the playoffs and won four Super Bowls. That includes teams like the perfect 1972 Dolphins, 1987 Redskins, 1999 Rams and 1974 Steelers. Maybe playing an easy schedule isn’t so bad?
     

    As history has shown us, it’s not good for your health to be involved in a lot of battles."

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    and what happens if we remove all the games from 2008 when the Patriots did not make the playoffs?


    There is no appreciable difference since the team still went 11-5 (4-2 in the division), and the fact that it's only 1 season out of 8 instead of 1 out of 4.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    and what happens if we remove all the games from 2008 when the Patriots did not make the playoffs?

     

     


    There is no appreciable difference since the team still went 11-5 (4-2 in the division), and the fact that it's only 1 season out of 8 instead of 1 out of 4.



    that's true as the 1 out of 4 would have greater weighting/effect on calculations. Do you by any chance have the same data broken down by division?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    Everyone knows that making it to the Superbowl is pretty tough as it is.  BB obviously has to put a new team together every year.  Part of the equation to making it deep into the playoffs (SB) is the regular season record. The AFC East is not really a powerhouse - some might say its actually a weak division. 

    Which leads to the question - how much of the regular season success is due to playing in a weak division? And, how does that affect the Patriots' playoff success? 

    Are the Patriots an over-rated team?



    Anonymis, you should just remain that...anonymous!

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to jfaust1954's comment:

    It amazes me that everyone jumps like a lap dog trying to answer someone who is an obvious TROLL looking to suck you guys into a meaningless debate...because that's precisely what he wants...



    Understood, however, I'd much prefer a thread like this rather than one on any subject that becomes an adolescent flame war.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from IrishMob7. Show IrishMob7's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to leonardo0110's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    In response to leonardo0110's comment:

     

    These are the Head-to-Head record

    Vs Cardinals 6-7       Vs Bengals 14-8       Vs Texans 3-1           Vs Saints 8-4

    Vs Falcons 6-6          Vs Browns 9-12        Vs Colts 45-28          Vs Giants 5-4

    Vs Ravens 6-1          Vs Dallas 4-7            Vs  Jaguars 6-0          Vs Jets 53-51

    Vs Bills 63-41           Vs Broncos 18-25      Vs Chiefs 13-16         Vs Raiders 15-14

    Vs Panthers 2-2       Vs Lions 6-4              Vs Dolphins 43-49      Vs Eagles 5-6

    Vs Bears 8-3            Vs Packers 5-4          Vs Vikings 7-4             Vs Steelers 8-14

     

    Vs Chargers 20-14   Vs Titans 22-15

    Vs 49ers 4-8             Redskins 3-6

    Vs Seahawks 8-8

    Vs Rams 6-5

    Vs Bucs 5-2

     

    Look at their records within the division  they're a combined 165-141..The only team that they have a better winning % against are the Bills...So to say they play in a weak division is very misleading..

     



    and how are the head to head records from 2005-2012?

     

     



     Why choose a specific timeframe? This is also misleading..Is not the Patriots fault that they have gotten better over the years and the competition hasn't done anything to better themselves..The question you should ask yourself is...Does the Bills,Dolphins, and Jets consider their division weak or strong? That is the same question every weak team should ask...why is my division so tough and hard to win...and the answer is because usually there's that ONE team that is Better than the rest...

     

    This is their H2H since 2005

    Vs Jets  13-5

    Vs Dolphins 12-4

     

    Vs Bills 15-1

     



    because teams change over time.  It wasn't really that long ago, when the Patriots were a below average team.

     

     



    Not that long ago?  Gronk was in huggies diapers the last time the Patriots were a "below average team."  

    Custom-made, hulk-like, extra large diapers, nonetheless.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from IrishMob7. Show IrishMob7's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to MattC05's comment:

    Here is the Pats' regular season records since 2001, broken down by opponent.  I think it's pretty obvious that they've been dominant regardless of who they've played.

    Total record: 146-46 (.760 win %)

     

    vs. AFCE: 57-15 (.792)

    vs. BUF: 22-2 (.917 WOW)

    vs. MIA: 17-7 (.708)

    vs. NYJ: 18-6 (.750)

     

    vs. non-AFCE: 89-31 (.742)

    vs. NFC: 39-9 (.813)

    vs. common AFC opponents: 35-13 (.729) (AFC division all other AFCE teams play)

    vs. non-common AFC: 15-9 (.625) (2 opponents per year based on previous year's finish; generally a top-tier first place team)



    Excellent research, Matt.  Don't show this to Jints.  He lives by the saying, "never let facts get in the way of a good argument."

    Over the past decade, the Pats have dominated an overhwhelming majority of their opponents whether it be inside their division or outside the conference.  It's damn amazing that they continue to put up the records that they do year-in and year-out given that this league is set up to induce parity.  They play the reigning champ of every division every single year and still put up 13+ wins a season.  

    There are no two ways around it.  The Pats are THAT good.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis's comment:

    Everyone knows that making it to the Superbowl is pretty tough as it is.  BB obviously has to put a new team together every year.  Part of the equation to making it deep into the playoffs (SB) is the regular season record. The AFC East is not really a powerhouse - some might say its actually a weak division. 

    Which leads to the question - how much of the regular season success is due to playing in a weak division? And, how does that affect the Patriots' playoff success? 

    Are the Patriots an over-rated team?



    DUH!

    They have a slam dunk/9-10 automatic wins (between their 6 division, and two other division's 3rd and 4th place teams) per season, and go flat as Kansas in the playoffs agains REAL contending teams. Overrated? Well, when the much bally-hooed Brady led offense goes 0-2nd half or 0-4th quarter, yeah.  There is no longer an "Us againt the world", fire in their belly attitude.

    Complacency does that to you. This bunch have become my "new" Red Sox of old..... I wait till the 4th qtr to see how badly they scru things up. They are not disappointing me on this, in recent playoff opportunities. Love all those e'come from in front wins" last season, including the AFCCC when they mailed it in right before halftime.

    Will I watch 'em? Oh, yes. Still entertaining. Do I hope they win? Yeah, but they have a long way to go to recapture that early 2000's emotion. But, come playoff time, it's not a matter of "if", but "when" they will play horribly.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:
    anonymis....  accept the fact the Pats ARE THAT GOOD and they are the cause for a bad division, not that a bad division is the cause of a VERY GOOD Pats team.  Patsbandwagon stats prove that out.

    Where did I say that the Patriots weren't good?



    anonymis..  you may not have come right out and said the Pats "weren't good" but, the nature of your post calls into question just how good the Pats are given the division they are in.  You are trying to rationalize the success of the Pats in these last 10 - 12 years as possibly being the end result of being in a "weak" division.  You are trying to rationalize their success or give a plausible reason for it other than they are simply a VERY GOOD TEAM.  You've succeeded in gaining attention. 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    If anything this team is underrated by many of it's fans. To expect the dominance we had a decade ago is silly. Those teams won 10 straight playoff games. That comes once in a lifetime if you're lucky.

    Even so, this team came so close in 2007 and 2011 and were among the best again last year. Injuries have also plagued us in recent years.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    Everyone knows that making it to the Superbowl is pretty tough as it is.  BB obviously has to put a new team together every year.  Part of the equation to making it deep into the playoffs (SB) is the regular season record. The AFC East is not really a powerhouse - some might say its actually a weak division.

    RESPONSE: So what? The Yankees have won pennant after pennant by playing .500 ball against the good teams, and dominating the bad teams. To win a championship, a team has to be both good, and lucky. Since 2006, the Pats have been good...but very unlucky. Half their defense seemingly missed the AFC title game in Indy with injuries...with Rodney Harrison going down in the 2006 season finale. There was that blasted helmut catch by David Tyree in 2007, the Brady injury in 2008, the Welker injury in the season finale in 2009, the Gronk injury in 2011, and, again, in 2012...along with losing Aqib Talib in the second half of the loss to the Ravens. The 2010 team, playing poorly and losing to the Jets at home, was the exception. That was a loss due solely to poor play.    

    Which leads to the question - how much of the regular season success is due to playing in a weak division? And, how does that affect the Patriots' playoff success?

    RESPONSE: It matters little. A team that has the perfect storm of being healthy, and playing their best ball at playoff time, usually wins the championship.   

    Are the Patriots an over-rated team?

    RESPONSE: No. Quite the contrary. With the exception of the 2010 seaon, some bad luck and untimely injuries to key players have really taken their toll in the play-offs. Had the Pats won one or both of those SBs in 2007 and 2011, would we even be having this conversation?


     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    A lot of divisions would seem "weak" if the teams in it had to play the Pats twice a year.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    A lot of divisions would seem "weak" if the teams in it had to play the Pats twice a year.



    Something frequently  over looked when dissecting this topic.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    A lot of divisions would seem "weak" if the teams in it had to play the Pats twice a year.



    RESPONSE: True...LOL!! I might also add that you can never tell how weak or strong a schedule a team plays, until the season starts rolling on. Last year, The AFC East was in fact weak. But, everyone thought that the Pats had a couple of cupcakes in Arizona and Seattle. How did that turn out? 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Patriots' Recent

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    In response to jfaust1954's comment:

     

    It amazes me that everyone jumps like a lap dog trying to answer someone who is an obvious TROLL looking to suck you guys into a meaningless debate...because that's precisely what he wants...

     



    Understood, however, I'd much prefer a thread like this rather than one on any subject that becomes an adolescent flame war.

     



    I know, right?  Just trying to have a discussion here.  There are obviously no right or wrong answers, and it's not like anyone else's opinions chage people's minds anyway.

    To be honest, I'm much more excited about this upcoming season than last year. I'm hoping that the Patriots have added enough playmakers defensively to make us better - so we can beat teams made up like the Giants or 49ers...

     

Share