Belichick Genius?? Someone explain

Conference Win - Loss Win Percentage

AFC 202 - 73 0.735

NFC 67 - 23 0.744

A few things stand out.

1. The AFC South has performed dismally against the Patriots, which even includes the Peyton Manning era Colts.
2. The Patriots difficulty with the Broncos (10-9) is the main reason the AFC West is at the bottom of this list.
3. The AFC East is smack dab in the middle of this list. Not nearly the cakewalk that the AFC South provides.
4. The Patriots have more losses against AFC East teams than the entire NFC.

This really only proves that the AFC East is just as bad as everyone else against the Patriots. But let's take it one step further. How has the rest of the AFC East performed vs other divisions since 2000?

Division W - L - T Win Percentage

NFC Central * 85 - 75 - 0 0.531

AFC East 689 - 627 - 0 0.524

AFC Central * 97 - 95 - 0 0.505

NFC East 658 - 652 - 2 0.502

AFC North 575 - 571 - 6 0.499

NFC South 606 - 608 - 2 0.498

AFC West 650 - 662 - 0 0.495

NFC North 567 - 580 - 5 0.492

AFC South 566 - 586 - 0 0.491

NFC West 603 - 640 - 5 0.483

Ok, this isn't really fair since we're including the Patriots in this and they've been otherworldly as we've already established. On the other hand, if we remove the Patriots from the results the AFC will plummet:

NFC Central * 85 - 75 - 0 0.531

AFC Central * 97 - 95 - 0 0.505

NFC East 658 - 652 - 2 0.502

AFC North 575 - 571 - 6 0.499

NFC South 606 - 608 - 2 0.498

AFC West 650 - 662 - 0 0.495

NFC North 567 - 580 - 5 0.492

AFC South 566 - 586 - 0 0.491

NFC West 603 - 640 - 5 0.483

AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454

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?

NFC Central * 61 - 67 - 0 0.477

AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454

AFC Central * 71 - 89 - 0 0.444

NFC East 436 - 554 - 2 0.440

NFC South 396 - 531 - 1 0.427

AFC North 368 - 491 - 5 0.426

AFC West 419 - 573 - 0 0.422

AFC South 362 - 502 - 0 0.419

NFC North 360 - 500 - 4 0.417

NFC West 381 - 544 - 3 0.411

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.

NFC South 423 - 471 - 2 0.472 New Orleans Saints (183 - 137 - 0)

NFC East 468 - 523 - 1 0.472 Philadelphia Eagles (190 - 129 - 1)

AFC West 468 - 524 - 0 0.472 Denver Broncos (182 - 138 - 0)

NFC West 421 - 503 - 4 0.454 Seattle Seahawks (182 - 137 - 1)

AFC East 450 - 542 - 0 0.454 New England Patriots (239 - 85 - 0)

NFC North 370 - 459 - 3 0.445 Green Bay Packers (197 - 121 - 2)

AFC North 370 - 458 - 4 0.445 Pittsburgh Steelers (205 - 113 - 2)

AFC South 369 - 463 - 0 0.444 Indianapolis Colts (197 - 123 - 0)

So the AFC East isn't at the top anymore, but neither are they far and away the worst division in football in the Brady/Belichick era. Regardless how you run the numbers the AFC East is still not the easiest division, by a long shot.

@njsupreme1

 It isn't an argument its a hole in his data base....

He is literally using year the patriots did not have Brady on the team....and since he's left the dolphins and bills have had some success which will skew all those numbers in favor of the side of his point...whether a little or a lot... it is not up for debate

Way more to it than this.  But pretty much every standard argument can be countered.  Patriots won against every division and made their division look worse than it was, etc., etc.  QB issues in divisions are countered, future HOFers are countered, serious challengers within the division is countered. Etc., etc.

Bottom line is people will pretty much choose to believe what they want to believe. 

But to not give credence to a dynasty that was that dominant for so long is just being disingenuous, in my opinion. 

From 2003-2019 the numbers will look worse for his argument as both the bills an phins have had recent success.....

@Raiders22

 No one is arguing they werent dominant....they clearly dominated 

This thread is about is belichick a 6 time SB winner without Brady....obviously not....Brady almost instantly won a ring without Bill.....Bill is lagging...he's a great coach but not some god winning 6 sb with scrub qbs

@dubz4dummyz

 It has 3 parts:

1) Belichick/Brady -- are they both GOATs, or does one make the other.

2) They won so often because the AFC East was weak.

3) Belichick/Brady were/are overrated.

All 3 parts tend to bleed into the myth that the AFC East was, by far, the weakest division -- it was not.  It also goes in the direction of one GOAT or the other carrying the other.  Then it says that because they won, and so often, Belichick is 'legendary'.

You cannot address Belichick without addressing all 3 parts.

He was NOT lucky because the AFC East was so weak.  He is NOT legendary because he won so much.  He is great because Brady made him great. 

But he is a GOOD coach and still will be great AND can become 'legendary' IF he wins WITHOUT Brady AND while other teams in the AFC East are good.

It all ties together, in my opinion. 

90 posts on basically the dumbest topic lately.

Lombardi did crap with the Redskins.....so yeah he sucked ( sarcasm

@Raiders22

I pretty much agree with all that.

Maybe the AFCE wasn't the weakest....but the Pats were FAR superior to all 3...usually the Jets gave them the toughest time...

Beli and Brady are not over rated at all...they dominated...

Without Brady belichick probably goes to 1 pr 2 super bowls max IMO....

It is all on Billy now...Brady got his ring without him almost instantly

@Raiders22

 And ya Brady and beli owned manning.almost felt bad for peyton

Then his lil bro goes and beats em twice in the SB

@Raiders22

 And ya Brady and beli owned manning.almost felt bad for peyton

Then his lil bro goes and beats em twice in the SB

@Raiders22

 And ya Brady and beli owned manning.almost felt bad for peyton

Then his lil bro goes and beats em twice in the SB

Never forget in both of those games Brady walked off the field after getting the lead and told his defense just stop them one time and we will win because they will never get the ball back.  But the defense could not do it in either game.  Haha!

@Raiders22

 Great point

I understand the focus on the division the Patriots played in over the years but in order to get to NINE ...that's right...NINE SUPER BOWLS...didn't they need to beat whoever the top teams in the conference were at the time?  Did they not beat KC with Mahomes? Did they not beat Peyton Manning and the Colts?  In other words, they beat whoever was in front of them to get to NINE SUPER BOWLS. What other coach got to NINE SB?? Will it even be done again in the age of free agency and salary caps?

@Dolphins1354

 Does your dislike for Belichick keep you up at night?  A .500 record for the last 2 years cancels out the other 20 years of achievements?  Sure, blow him out of there...he's a bum!!