The Myth of the Easy AFC East: The Definitive Guide

[farn]

The AFCE hasn’t been that great. I’m not saying other divisions are MUCH better, but the truth is that despite winning games here and there, I can’t think of any BUF, NYJ, MIA team since 2001 having a realistic shot at the SB. Yes, Rex was in the championship game twice, but they were good, not great.

Despite being inconsistent, the NFCS is interesting, because despite some bad seasons, most teams have had several seasons when they we’re actual contenders. Same goes for the NFCN.

 

[1960Pats]

We've been through this exercise before. Some years the afce has had winning records vs other divisions and some years not.

If the Pats sucked they'd be knocked out of the playoffs every year (like 05-10 and 2012 -2013)

The link provided by the OP shows the error in thinking that the AFCE is weak. Too bad that some here won't take the time to read it. It explains it all in simple numbers.

As for the playoffs, the best example of what you're talking about was the AFCS when PEDton was there. The Indiots went one-and-done nine times while he was there, with many of those coming after they had the top record in the AFC. That proves the point about the AFCS that the losers are trying to make about the AFCE.

 

[Koma]

A difficulty in defending the AFC East is the binary thinking of the people who think the division, minus the Patriots, is awful. That is, if you don't agree that the division is the absolute worst, then you must think it's the best. The conversation usually goes like this:

Troll: "The AFCE is a joke. The Patriots are only good because the other 3 teams are tomato cans."
Knowledgeable Football fan: "If you actually look at the numbers, the AFC East isn't that terrible."
Troll: "Oh, yeah, the AFC East is just the best. I lost count of all the Super Bowls and undefeated seasons the Bills, Jets, and Dolphins have had over the last 20 years. You Cheatriots homers are the worst."​

There's no room for believing the AFC East could be middle of the pack, third best, third worst or whatever because that would mean they would admit the division isn't the worst, which ruins their argument.

 

[mosslost]

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty

Say what you want in 20 years there has been no AFCE team with a break out year except the pats..

Every other division has had done 12 win random teams or several 13 win teams or even an occasional 14-2 team.

Only three times in 20 years has a team other than the Pats managed as many as 11 wins.

We are the only division in the NFL for which there have not been more than one “breakout” teams in 20 years.

 

[jmt57]

Very interesting stats, very useful, but I believe the debate here is NOT 'the AFCE stinks' but instead 'the other teams in the AFCE stink'

The author (or perhaps PatsFan plagiarist?) looked at the debate from this angle as well, in the last two sections of the article.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty

But again, this isn't fair to the AFC East. Of course you're going to look bad if you take away the best record from your division every year. And it just so happens that the Patriots have finished the season with the best record in the AFC East every year -- even when they don't win the division. So what happens when we remove every season's division winner from the equation?​

(answer: AFC East ranks number one)

Huh. The AFC East is back on top when you remove the best team from each division, which leads me to believe that the rest of the AFC East hasn't been "easy" by any stretch. What this shows is that in the 2nd - 4th spot in any division, the AFC East has the best record, regardless of who was in that spot.

But some claim that it's unfair to remove the division winner for each season, since that punishes teams that have a good year and win the division occasionally. They argue that the comparison should be removing the best teams from each division since 2000. So let's put that argument to the test and compare divisions when removing the best performing team.​

(answer: AFC East is in the middle of the pack, ahead of the AFC North, AFC South and NFC West - and just three wins (415 vs 412, .003 percentage points) behind the NFC North.



It appears to me that that the teams benefitting the most from playing in a certain division this century are the Seahawks, Colts, Steelers and Ravens.

Interesting to note that the most vocal (other than Dan Shaugnessy and his like) in banging the 'weak AFC East/tomato can' drum are fans of those last two fan bases, who have had the Browns and Bengals on their schedule twice every year.



The problem is that most people look at this debate from an entire division versus only three teams in the AFC East. Compare teams 1, 2, 3 and 4 from Group A to teams 2, 3 and 4 of Group B, and the reasonable expectation is that the former would perform/rank better than the latter.

That is an unfair test, not unlike comparing one player or team to the entire field. We used to hear the same thing from the 'haven't won since caught cheating' crowd, which used the logic of comparing the number of one team's championships to that of 31 other team's combined championships.

 

[brdmaverick]

The author (or perhaps PatsFan plagiarist?) looked at the debate from this angle as well, in the last two sections of the article.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty

But again, this isn't fair to the AFC East. Of course you're going to look bad if you take away the best record from your division every year. And it just so happens that the Patriots have finished the season with the best record in the AFC East every year -- even when they don't win the division. So what happens when we remove every season's division winner from the equation?​

(answer: AFC East ranks number one)

Huh. The AFC East is back on top when you remove the best team from each division, which leads me to believe that the rest of the AFC East hasn't been "easy" by any stretch. What this shows is that in the 2nd - 4th spot in any division, the AFC East has the best record, regardless of who was in that spot.

But some claim that it's unfair to remove the division winner for each season, since that punishes teams that have a good year and win the division occasionally. They argue that the comparison should be removing the best teams from each division since 2000. So let's put that argument to the test and compare divisions when removing the best performing team.​

(answer: AFC East is in the middle of the pack, ahead of the AFC North, AFC South and NFC West - and just three wins (415 vs 412, .003 percentage points) behind the NFC North.

ha, I guess I needed to keep reading,

but to my point, when using this stat the AFCE drops to 5th from 1st (far more appropriate in my eyes)

I was surprised to see them higher than the AFC North, but I suppose the Browns almost single handedly dragged that division down with their historic woes.

 

[jmt57]

ha, I guess I needed to keep reading,

At least you read most of the article before chiming in.

That's more than what some have appeared to have done.

 

[FCB02062]

From F&M today...Pats were +111 overall...and were +110 in the AFCE alone...so vs the rest of the league they were only +1...

 

[Deus Irae]

There hasn't been a real threat from any of them to win the division, except briefly when Rex took over the Jets.

Some examples of elephants in the rooms when it comes to these discussions:

Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Joe Montana


It's almost as if having all-time level QBs give teams a big advantage in their divisions.

 

[jmt57]

From F&M today...Pats were +111 overall...and were +110 in the AFCE alone...so vs the rest of the league they were only +1...

That is true.


The Patriots are also 4-0, +31 points versus 2018-19 playoff teams.



Did F&M also mention that stat?

 

[Observer]

It’s the constant level of dysfunction of the other AFC east teams that gives the impression of a terrible division. Don’t the Bills have a record for number of different coaches? That and the fact that there hasn’t been a noteworthy QB in the AFC East other than Brady for the last 20 years. Even when the Jets made it past the Pats they did it with Mark Sanchez!!!

 

[primetime]

It’s the constant level of dysfunction of the other AFC east teams that gives the impression of a terrible division.

That would seem to imply it's something more than an impression.

Look, it's perfectly reasonable to say the Patriots have been a great team for a long time whose sustained greatness has undoubtedly been aided because they play in a division with teams that have been cupcakes for most of the last 15+ years.

Yes, they have to play the Patriots twice so that screws with their records. Yes, those teams have occasionally had decent years. But overall there hasn't been a top-10 QB in the division besides Brady in the Brady era other than a few years of Chad Pennington. That's a big deal by itself.

Seriously, rank the other AFC East QBs in the Brady era (aside from the one Manning year prior to realignment). It's bleak.

1. Chad Pennington
2. That one Brett Favre year
3. Ryan Fitzpatrick
4. That one Drew Bledsoe year
5. Ryan Tannehill
6. Tyrod Taylor
7. Jay Fiedler
8. Mark Sanchez
9-X. Cleo Lemon? Josh McCown? Joey Harrington??

There's not a single division in football where the top-10 QBs over the last 15+ years from the second to fourth most successful teams in the division over that timeframe would look that bleak.

 

[Koma]

Something that impacts the way people view the AFC East is that teams in other divisions go on cycles where they rise and fall.

In the NFCS, for example, the Saints, Panthers and Falcons have all appeared in the Super Bowl over the last 10 years. The Falcons won 13 games in 2012, lost the NFCCG, then missed the playoffs for 3 straight years, winning 18 games during that stretch, before going to the SB. The Panthers started turning this around under Ron Rivera in 2011, went to the playoff for three straight years between 2013-2015, culminating in a SB loss. They missed the playoffs the follow year, were back in 2017, then missed them again this year. The Saints had 3 consecutive 7-9 seasons from 2014-2016, made the playoffs last year and are the #1 seed this year.

With the AFCE, instead of 3 teams going through varying periods of success, mediocrity and failure, it's been one team being being consistently successful. Something that makes the Patriots run even more remarkable is that they haven't had back to back 4, 6, or 8 win seasons where they get the benefit of drafting in the upper half of a the round for a couple years to re-stock the team. They've been doing it while regularly picking in the 20s or 30s each round (when the league wasn't stealing their picks.)

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, I'm getting a little bit tired of this nonsense. So, assuming I didn't miscount, here's a dose of reality (If I miscounted, the reality is still likely to be very close to the same as the erroneous 'reality'). The league switched to the 4 team division starting in 2002. During that time, here's the breakdown for the number of times an AFC division (AFCE, AFCN, AFCS, AFCW) had had a team besides the division winner winning 10 games or more.

0010
1011
1001
0111
1000
0120
1110
0000
1100
0100
0110
0001
0200
1101
1001
0000
0011
____
7877

Despite all the crying about the weak division, only the AFCN has had more years with double digit winning runner ups. And that's with those AFCE teams having to play the Patriots twice every season.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Something that impacts the way people view the AFC East is that teams in other divisions go on cycles where they rise and fall.

In the NFCS, for example, the Saints, Panthers and Falcons have all appeared in the Super Bowl over the last 10 years. The Falcons won 13 games in 2012, lost the NFCCG, then missed the playoffs for 3 straight years, winning 18 games during that stretch, before going to the SB. The Panthers started turning this around under Ron Rivera in 2011, went to the playoff for three straight years between 2013-2015, culminating in a SB loss. They missed the playoffs the follow year, were back in 2017, then missed them again this year. The Saints had 3 consecutive 7-9 seasons from 2014-2016, made the playoffs last year and are the #1 seed this year.

With the AFCE, instead of 3 teams going through varying periods of success, mediocrity and failure, it's been one team being being consistently successful. Something that makes the Patriots run even more remarkable is that they haven't had back to back 4, 6, or 8 win seasons where they get the benefit of drafting in the upper half of a the round for a couple years to re-stock the team. They've been doing it while regularly picking in the 20s or 30s each round (when the league wasn't stealing their picks.)

True but there are two other divisions (AFC South, AFC West) where that's also true (i.e. the bottom 3 teams haven't made a Super Bowl since 2002) and a third division where it's true if you reduce that window slightly to 2006 (NFC North). So in that respect, the AFC East represents half the league.

If the Pats were in most other NFL divisions instead of the current top team, people would say that they benefit from having to play an easy division. Imagine if they got to play the Ravens, Bengals and Browns twice a year each? That's almost automatic 4-2 or 5-1. Before the Steelers loss they had won 13 straight against the AFC North.

 

[TB_Helmet]

That would seem to imply it's something more than an impression.

Look, it's perfectly reasonable to say the Patriots have been a great team for a long time whose sustained greatness has undoubtedly been aided because they play in a division with teams that have been cupcakes for most of the last 15+ years.

Yes, they have to play the Patriots twice so that screws with their records. Yes, those teams have occasionally had decent years. But overall there hasn't been a top-10 QB in the division besides Brady in the Brady era other than a few years of Chad Pennington. That's a big deal by itself.

Seriously, rank the other AFC East QBs in the Brady era (aside from the one Manning year prior to realignment). It's bleak.

1. Chad Pennington
2. That one Brett Favre year
3. Ryan Fitzpatrick
4. That one Drew Bledsoe year
5. Ryan Tannehill
6. Tyrod Taylor
7. Jay Fiedler
8. Mark Sanchez
9-X. Cleo Lemon? Josh McCown? Joey Harrington??

There's not a single division in football where the top-10 QBs over the last 15+ years from the second to fourth most successful teams in the division over that timeframe would look that bleak.

The Texans, Jags and Titans would like a word with you.

 

[PatsFan2]

I’d like to see Pittsburgh’s winning percentage against their own division as a comparison. Has their been a better team in the AFC other than NE and Pitt since 2000? Maybe Colts?

AFC North way more competitive both Pittsburgh and Baltimore have won SB's that we all remember.

 

[primetime]

The Texans, Jags and Titans would like a word with you.

Certainly the weakest of the other divisions, but still stronger at the top and bottom than the AFC East, and notable that one team was an expansion team in that era.

1. Steve McNair
2. DeShaun Watson
3. Matt Schaub
4. Mark Brunell
5. David Garrard
6. Marcus Mariota
7. Vince Young
8. David Carr
9. Byron Leftwich
10. Etc.

 

[Triumph]

Bunch of lies.

Division games are easy.

 

[Steve102]

The division does suck hard lately, but if you look back (starting in 2001) and research the years where the AFCE has fielded two playoff teams for the AFC, you would actually be surprised.

Correct. I did a bit of research. (the internet is a wonderful thing sometimes) In 2001, both Miami (11-5) and the Jets (10-6) made it. Here's the breakdown of playoff teams out of the AFC East:

• 2004 Jete, 10-6, #5 seed
• 2006 Jete, 10-6, #5 seed
• 2009 Jete, 9-7, #5 seed
• 2010 Jete, 11-5, #6 seed
• 2016 Dolphins, 10-6, #6 seed
• 2017 Bills, 9-7, #6 seed

That does not include the 2002 and 2008 division winners, the Jete in 02 and the dolphins in 08. In 2003, Miami was 10-6 and missed the playoffs. In 2015, the Jete went 10-6 and missed the tournament as well.

I would say it's Fake News that the division on a whole sucks, with this caveat: since the Pats run started, there's always a really bad team in the division. The most wins by the last place team in the AFC East was 7-9 Bills in 2008.

I'm geeking out now. Since 2001, the NFC east has had 8 seasons with multiple qualifiers to the playoffs, including the Giants in 2007 as a #5. The AFC North has had 9 such seasons, including the Steelers SB winning season in 2005 as the #6 seed. The AFC west has had 7 such seasons. The AFC south has had 8. NFC South has had 7. The NFC North has 9, including GB's SB win in 2010 as a #6. NFC West has done multiple representatives 8 times. So, it's pretty even, with the AFC East coming in last with 6 seasons with multiple teams in the playoffs.

Going one step further, divisions with three qualifiers to the playoffs since 2001:

• NFC West: 0
• NFC South: once, in 2017. New Orleans, Carolina, Atlanta
• AFC South : once in 2007. Indy, Jax, Tennessee
• AFC West: once, in 2013. Denver, KC, SD
• NFC East: twice, in 2006 Philly, Dallas, and NY, 2007, Dallas, NY and Washington
• NFC North: 0
• AFC North: twice, 2011 and 2014, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Cincy