The Myth of the Easy AFC East: The Definitive Guide

[maust]

Other than looking to discredit New England's accomplishments what's the core argument here? If it's that the Pats succeed because they have no competition in the division see post 17 in this thread to understand New England wins at the same clip outside the division as they do in it. If the argument is that the division is weak overall so New England gets an unwarranted but automatic trip to the playoffs each year then given the reality of imbalanced schedules how do we really measure the strength of one division relative to another?

As all divisions are automatically .500 against themselves there is no reason to jump through hoops extricating division games from the equation when evaluating division win %'s or wins per team. The variable that skews the div vs div comparison process is the imbalanced schedule. The schedule formula has each conference cycling through in conference division opponents every 3 years and out of conference division opponents every 4. Therefore over a 12 year period each division will have faced the other divisions an equal number of times. Again keeping in mind all divisions are perforce .500 against themselves, these are the wins per team by division for the 12 years ending in '16 (the last 12 year cycle I ran the numbers for):

AFCE: 8.425
NFCE: 8.25
NFCN: 8.25
NFCS: 8.075
AFCN 7.925
AFCW: 7.725
AFCS: 7.675
NFCW: 7.40

It's worth noting the East was not only the strongest division in football during that period but the only division in the AFC better than .500.

 

[1960Pats]

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!!!

If QBs are the difference why does the AFCE (excluding the top teams) have the best record vs other divisions?

 

[1960Pats]

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.

The numbers don't lie.

 

[Observer]

If QBs are the difference why does the AFCE (excluding the top teams) have the best record vs other divisions?

They must have great coaching ? The reality is probably that all divisions outside of the top team have sucked on average.

 

[Deus Irae]

The numbers don't lie.

They do require context, and the AFCE has not been particularly strong (one can really more accurately say that there hasn't been a consistent second fiddle) but some of the arguments here are pretty easily dismissed. The AFCS and its QBs? Come on. When healthy, Pennington was as good as almost all of those not named Manning or Luck (McNair was still playing at a high level until 2003).

 

[Doctor DDS]

The AFCE has definitely been the least competitive division but that is mainly due to the Pats being such a juggernaut. One of the reasons other divisions have had more 2 team playoff years is because their top team was not as good. When was the last time the Pats went 0-2 against a divisional opponent? Plus the division has not had the long time slug like the Browns to help inflate 2nd and 3rd place team records.

 

[Deus Irae]

The AFCE has definitely been the least competitive division but that is mainly due to the Pats being such a juggernaut. One of the reasons other divisions have had more 2 team playoff years is because their top team was not as good. When was the last time the Pats went 0-2 against a divisional opponent? Plus the division has not had the long time slug like the Browns to help inflate 2nd and 3rd place team records.

The Myth of the Easy AFC East: The Definitive Guide

Now, running down the NFC:

1000
1001
0000
1010
0000
1000
0010
1100
1120
0110
0201
0012
1101
0101
1000
0020
0001
____
8666


So, overall, in terms of which divisions had multiple teams reaching double digit wins during the 4 division era (2002-2018) of Brady's career*:

AFCE - 7
AFCN - 8
AFCS - 7
AFCW - 7

NFCE - 8
NFCN - 6
NFCS - 6
NFCW - 6



*Note that this is the number of years it happened, not the number of teams that did it, meaning some divisions had 2 in one year, but only the 1 matters.

 

[TB_Helmet]

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.

One interesting conclusion from this way of looking at it is that the AFC East had 5 10-win runner ups from 2002 through 2011, and since then have only had 2, one being the a 10-6 Jets team that missed the playoffs, and another being a very underwhelming Dolphins team that lost in the first round and felt like they had no business being there.

However last decade, the division had more 10-win seasons including those Rex Ryan Jets teams. I can't remember if there was a narrative back then that "The Patriots only win because they are in a weak division" or if there is a recency bias where the AFC East has been worse the past 7 years, and people who make the argument forget about the first 9 years (which is dumb).

FWIW, this thread reminds me once again that sports discussions are often the smartest debates people will ever have, given the amount of data available to support arguments (as shown in here) and the level of logic and reasoning people need to use to prove a point.

 

[Deus Irae]

One interesting conclusion from this way of looking at it is that the AFC East had 5 10-win runner ups from 2002 through 2011, and since then have only had 2, one being the a 10-6 Jets team that missed the playoffs, and another being a very underwhelming Dolphins team that lost in the first round and felt like they had no business being there.

Ok, but doing that we see even 2 in the last 8 isn't anything terrible, in comparison to the rest of the league:

AFCE - 5 in first 9, 2 in last 8
AFCN - 4 in first 9, 4 in last 8
AFCS - 5 in first 9, 2 in last 8
AFCW - 3 in first 9, 4 in last 8
NFCE - 6 in first 9, 2 in the last 8
NFCN - 2 in first 9, 4 in the last 8
NFCS - 3 in first 9, 3 in the last 8
NFCW - 1 in first 9, 5 in the last 8

If we're hunting for CHB's tomato cans, we need to focus on the NFCN and NFCW from 2002 - 2011.

 

[brdmaverick]

One interesting conclusion from this way of looking at it is that the AFC East had 5 10-win runner ups from 2002 through 2011, and since then have only had 2, one being the a 10-6 Jets team that missed the playoffs, and another being a very underwhelming Dolphins team that lost in the first round and felt like they had no business being there.

However last decade, the division had more 10-win seasons including those Rex Ryan Jets teams. I can't remember if there was a narrative back then that "The Patriots only win because they are in a weak division" or if there is a recency bias where the AFC East has been worse the past 7 years, and people who make the argument forget about the first 9 years (which is dumb).

FWIW, this thread reminds me once again that sports discussions are often the smartest debates people will ever have, given the amount of data available to support arguments (as shown in here) and the level of logic and reasoning people need to use to prove a point.

I was thinking about a potential recency bias as well, because while I don't go to too many games, one that I did go to was the Jets/Pats game in 2010.

At the time that was game was looked as the biggest regular season game for the Pats in quite some time. The game was a primetime game in December in which both teams had insanely good records and were only a game apart. It was like this year's KC/LA matchup where they were both juggernauts, but only 1 could be the 1 seed and the other would be relegated to the 5 seed. The Pats won that game, 45-3. It was fun

 

[Ring 6]

It’s not that the division has been weak it’s that the patriots have beaten the crap out of those teams.
The other AFCE teams have been very comparable as a group to the league average against the rest of the league but whipping boys to the patriots. 12.5% of their schedule has a 25% w/l record because they have to play the pats.

 

[bobbutts]

My guess is that: They appear to suck more than they actually do because the 2 games vs. the Patriots is worth about 1.5 losses on avg per year, every year, which means they are essentially starting a half game back.

 

[mgteich]

We believe what believe.

Some folks believe that MIA, NYJ and BUF would be great teams and often in the playoffs if the patriots weren't in their division.

Others think that these teams would suck no matter what division they were in.

Others think that these teams would be just as bad if there was other team leading the division instead of the pats, say PITT or BALT or DEN.
===
QUESTION
Would the patriots have as good a record in we were switched with CIN or CLE in the Brady era?

 

[jmt57]

===
QUESTION
Would the patriots have as good a record in we were switched with CIN or CLE in the Brady era?

In this scenario I would think that the Patriots' record would decrease in approximately the same proportion as the decrease in Pittsburgh's record, and decrease in Baltimore's record.

Assuming that happened, all that would prove is that the Patriots were better than the Browns (or Bengals) during that time period. Since Pittsburgh and Baltimore's records would also presumably drop, it doesn't create any evidence that the current AFCN is better than the current AFCE.

Same result should happen swapping a top team in any division for a bottom team in another division.

If the conclusion in this hypothetical is that the Patriots benefit from playing in a division with the Jets, Bills and Dolphins, then that logic should be applied equally to other teams. In this case that means the Steelers and Ravens have benefitted from playing in a division with the Browns and Bengals - since their won-loss record is not as good with the Patriots in their division.

================

One other thought about this scenario.

If in this alternate universe (Pats & Browns switch divisions) we have a division from 2001 to 2018 consisting of the Jets, Bills, Dolphins and Browns - is one or more of those teams considered to better than what they have actually been? One of those teams has to win the division each and every year. Do those titles and double digit winning seasons make them 'better', even though they perform exactly the same? Is the AFC East 'stronger' because different teams are winning the division every year?

 

[TB_Helmet]

We believe what believe.

Some folks believe that MIA, NYJ and BUF would be great teams and often in the playoffs if the patriots weren't in their division.

Others think that these teams would suck no matter what division they were in.

Others think that these teams would be just as bad if there was other team leading the division instead of the pats, say PITT or BALT or DEN.
===
QUESTION
Would the patriots have as good a record in we were switched with CIN or CLE in the Brady era?

Given that the Patriots record is the same outside of the division as it is within, I think we’d have the same amount of success if we were switched with Cleveland.

 

[Deus Irae]

Given that the Patriots record is the same outside of the division as it is within, I think we’d have the same amount of success if we were switched with Cleveland.

One could argue that Baltimore has matched up well against the Patriots and might have led to additional Patriots losses. One could also argue that Pittsburgh has not matched up well against the Patriots (Patriots 11-4 in Brady era), and might have led to additional Patriots wins.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Why does it always have to be everything?

The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have not had a great team during the Pats run, the best ones were the Rex Ryan Jets teams which isn't that exceptional.

However, the Pats record against the best teams in the NFL/the playoffs, etc. is still elite so it's not "just because" the division, but the division still hasn't produced elite teams outside the Pats.

 

[Kdo5]

Why does it always have to be everything?

The Dolphins/Jets/Bills have not had a great team during the Pats run, the best ones were the Rex Ryan Jets teams which isn't that exceptional.

However, the Pats record against the best teams in the NFL/the playoffs, etc. is still elite so it's not "just because" the division, but the division still hasn't produced elite teams outside the Pats.

I think we have to agree that the Pats have really not had any formidable division opponents over the years. The Pats have been a juggernaut but they've never had a great QB against them in the division.

There have been AFCE teams that are well above average but never have I once taken any of them seriously. I didn't even take the 2010 Jets seriously until they beat us. 42-3 a few weeks before.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think we have to agree that the Pats have really not had any formidable division opponents over the years. The Pats have been a juggernaut but they've never had a great QB against them in the division.

There have been AFCE teams that are well above average but never have I once taken any of them seriously. I didn't even take the 2010 Jets seriously until they beat us. 42-3 a few weeks before.

Not meaning to jump on you at all, but just to point out a couple of examples of the complexities of this issue in response to the specifics of your post:

1. During the Brady/4 team division era, the Patriots winning percentage against the Steelers is better than the Patriots winning percentage against the Dolphins.
2. If we're dismissing teams without great QBs, we can dismiss both Ravens SB winning teams and both Giants SB winning teams, right off the bat.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The weak AFCE argument keeps coming up, so this thread needs a bump.

Here's a useful analysis. Look at all of the teams in every division each year that did not win the division. What are their average number of victories?

Going back to 2008, the AFCE is the toughest!

credit: Barry Inciong, administrator of ‎Patriots Tailgate group on Facebook