60% - An impressive stat - Winning in Today's NFL.

[mcgraw_wv]

I just realized that over the past 10 years, the New England Patriots have played in 60% of all AFC Conference Championships.

Win or lose this weekend, that stat alone is enough to showcase just how prolonged, and consistent this team has been over the Bill B, and Brady Era.

60% of all AFC Championship games... Impressive, I tip my hat to the Patriots!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I just realized that over the past 10 years, the New England Patriots have played in 60% of all AFC Conference Championships.

Win or lose this weekend, that stat alone is enough to showcase just how prolonged, and consistent this team has been over the Bill B, and Brady Era.

60% of all AFC Championship games... Impressive, I tip my hat to the Patriots!

Another impressive stat: there are five playoff games per conference per year. So, on average, a team should host about 3 playoff games per decade if it were truly random.

On Sunday, TFB will play in and BB will coach the 12th home playoff game in Brady's 10 seasons as the Pats' starter. :rocker:

 

[JJDChE]

Another impressive stat: there are five playoff games per conference per year. So, on average, a team should host about 3 playoff games per decade if it were truly random.

On Sunday, TFB will play in and BB will coach the 12th home playoff game in Brady's 10 seasons as the Pats' starter. :rocker:

Plus four neutral site games. That means on 4 out of 20 playoff games under Brady have been on the road.

 

[Rob0729]

Not as impressive as the Jets' "Back to Back AFC Championship Participants Super Bowls", but quite impressive none the less. But until the Pats can figure out how to win the Super Bowl by losing in the AFC Championships like the Jets do, they are just lacking.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Plus four neutral site games. That means on 4 out of 20 playoff games under Brady have been on the road.

Actually 5 on the road, 2@Pitt, (2W), 1 @SD (W) and a loss at Indy and Denver each. Overall 3-2 on the road.

 

[borg]

11 years not 10....54.5%

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

Not as impressive as the Jets' "Back to Back AFC Championship Participants Super Bowls", but quite impressive none the less. But until the Pats can figure out how to win the Super Bowl by losing in the AFC Championships like the Jets do, they are just lacking.

:singing::singing::singing::singing::singing::singing::singing::singing:

 

[ctpatsfan77]

11 years not 10....54.5%

Brady wasn't the starter in 2008. . . .

 

[borg]

Brady wasn't the starter in 2008. . . .

And this is relevant to the OP discussion how?

 

[VrabelJr]

11 years not 10....54.5%

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

Yeah, I keep hitting my head against this; but it's the 11th year in the sample:

1. 2001
2. 2002
3. 2003

....

11. 2011

 

[plk]

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

Try counting on your fingers. 2001, 2002, etc. Unless you are different from most of us, you will run out of fingers.

 

[borg]

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

You seem very confident with your math

 

[mgteich]

You need to use your fingers and toes. 2001 through 2011 is eleven years. Or simply count form 1 through 11. You will see that there are 11 numbers, not 10.

Actually, I think of this great achievement as 50%, in the 12 years that Belichick has been here.

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

 

[VrabelJr]

Nah, you're all wrong.

 

[BelizePats]

Not as impressive as the Jets' "Back to Back AFC Championship Participants Super Bowls", but quite impressive none the less. But until the Pats can figure out how to win the Super Bowl by losing in the AFC Championships like the Jets do, they are just lacking.

I'm sick and tired of all this Jets bashing, just because they always choke in the really big games. Don't you know that 2 AFCC appearances is better than and Superbowl win. Way better. I mean its not even close according to Jets fans and their coach.

 

[plk]

Nah, you're all wrong.

I assume that you are being humorous, but if you are not, you will find a lot of posters to this forum who think just the way you do.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

The 2001 season's AFCCG was played Jan 27th 2002.
The 2011 season's AFCCG will be played Jan 22nd 2012.
They are within a 10 year period. (If you were born Jan 27th 2002, you would be 10 years old Jan 27th 2012, not 11).
Time is counted differently than fingers. You start at 0, not 1.
Jan 22nd will be the 11th AFCCG in that 10 year span.

You're both half right.
We will have played in 54.5% of the AFCCGs in the last decade.

 

[plk]

You're both half right.
We will have played in 54.5% of the AFCCGs in the last decade.

Clever. Your ability to intentionally misunderstand the intent of other posters is impressive. Still, there are any number of posters who are exceptional at that.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

I just realized that over the past 10 years, the New England Patriots have played in 60% of all AFC Conference Championships.

Win or lose this weekend, that stat alone is enough to showcase just how prolonged, and consistent this team has been over the Bill B, and Brady Era.

60% of all AFC Championship games... Impressive, I tip my hat to the Patriots!

His intent is to tell me that we've played in 60% of the AFCCGs in the last decade. That is incorrect as there have been 11, not 10.

11 years not 10....54.5%

His intent is to tell the OP that it's 11 years and our 6 games would be 54.5%, again incorrect as it's only been 10 years.

Actually it is 10 years. 2001 to 2011.

His intent is to correct the previous guy that it is in fact 10 years. He is correct, but doesn't account for the number of AFCCGs.

Try counting on your fingers. 2001, 2002, etc. Unless you are different from most of us, you will run out of fingers.

You use fingers to argue for the 11 year theory.

Clever. Your ability to intentionally misunderstand the intent of other posters is impressive. Still, there are any number of posters who are exceptional at that.

What exactly am I intentionally misunderstanding?