Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Patriots have always benefited from playing in a weak division in my opinion. Put them in the afc north, and having to play the Steelers, Ravens, and Bengals twice. Except for Miami, there is no heated rivalry and nothing as intense as in the afc north. I mean 9 straight division titles, who wins 9 straight division titles in any sport these days. So, they are always in a position for home field, and pretty rested and not beaten up, like how the Steelers lost Shazier in that game with the Bengals. Yeah they been good, but playing that division sure doesn't hurt. CONGRATS EAGLES AND FANS EVERYWHERE.
I'm definitely ready for the end of instant replay. I can tell you that had any other referee been in that game besides Steratore, the Eagles would have come away with two less TDs. Steratore is the one ref who is reluctant to overturn things without blatant evidence.
The replays just make things more vague, not less.
It went to the booth, and they were not in NY this time, they were in the stadium, it was not Steratore’s call.
The Patriots have always benefited from playing in a weak division in my opinion. Put them in the afc north, and having to play the Steelers, Ravens, and Bengals twice.
It's been proven over and over again the Patriots have something like a 80% winning percentage give or take a+5% vs. every division in football. The weak division thing is not a very good argument. You want to put them in the AFC North? Okay, so you are suggesting cherry picking and replacing the Browns with the Patriots rather than taking out the Ravens or Steelers?
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,553,869 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher
It's been proven over and over again the Patriots have something like a 80% winning percentage give or take a+5% vs. every division in football. The weak division thing is not a very good argument. You want to put them in the AFC North? Okay, so you are suggesting cherry picking and replacing the Browns with the Patriots rather than taking out the Ravens or Steelers?
Also we played the Steelers and beat them - what's the point -
The Patriots have always benefited from playing in a weak division in my opinion. Put them in the afc north, and having to play the Steelers, Ravens, and Bengals twice. Except for Miami, there is no heated rivalry and nothing as intense as in the afc north. I mean 9 straight division titles, who wins 9 straight division titles in any sport these days. So, they are always in a position for home field, and pretty rested and not beaten up, like how the Steelers lost Shazier in that game with the Bengals. Yeah they been good, but playing that division sure doesn't hurt. CONGRATS EAGLES AND FANS EVERYWHERE.
Except that is simply not the case. During their 17 year run, they're average 8.15 wins a season against teams outside of the AFC East. So even if they were to go .500 in the East, they'd still win 11 plus games a year. Also, over that 17 year stretch, they've won 80% of their games vs. the North - they've won their last 8 games against the North. So I think New England would have little issue in that division.
Even though the Pats have won the AFC East consistently, they have not dominated the EAST foes as much as you would think. The Dolphins beat them this season, the Bills beat them last season, the Jets and the Dolphins beat them the year before forcing them out of the #1 seed, forcing them on the road and losing to the Broncos in Mile High in the AFC Champ game. Only twice in the Brady/Belichick era have the Pats swept the AFC east in a season (6-0)... more often than not they have lost 2 games to division foes finishing 4-2.. that leaves 8-10 wins outside the division.. so yea, the AFC East looks weak in comparison simply because the Pats win the division every year but its not the division wins that set them up for the top seed..
That being said, there is something to be said about having to play PITT and Baltimore not once a year or every other year but TWICE a year each.. that certainly would make things tougher and it would be hard to argue that the Pats would still have 15/16 division titles in the Brady/Belichick ERA were they playing in the AFC North...
Last edited by mco65; 02-05-2018 at 11:17 AM..
Reason: AFC/NFC, whose counting.. ;)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(short for LILLIAN?)