I dont agree,could be that div was so bad was because pats won all the div games most of the time?
Coaches play a huge part in whether they are winners or not, esp the playoffs.
If pats got in due to weak div only they would not be able to beat the good teams, (2) that they would have to play and beat to get to SB.
Being top seed helps, but you still have to beat those 2 teams who are good, and you have to have a team good enough to do that,
and then also win the SB.
So what you are saying makes no sense.
I am not denying bill or the patriots were not great teams. I am saying that for a good part of bradys career they had a high percentage chance of getting into the playoffs, a bye, and home field advantage, where as the cowboys with romo had a lower chance during that time due to the competition in the east. It is not a comparison of skill or a complaint, it is a comparison of schedule strength and the playoff bracket. I am sure there were teams that had the ability and design that would have given them a high percentage chance to beat the patriots, that due to their division, were kept out of the playoffs.
An example would be, if the packers, 49ers, eagles, and lions were in the same division, it would be a different looking year for the cowboys. If the cowboys had 2 more teams like the Commanders in their division, they would have had a higher chance of getting that bye in week 1.
The coaches do play a part during the week and gameday. What I was trying to get over is that belichick is not some other wordly abnormal talent. There are 32 good head coaches in the nfl. They all make winning calls and dumb calls. If 50 percent is average out of the 32 hc's, belicheck might be at 54% and Mccarthy is at 52%. I personally believe their division was more of a factor in the patriots becoming a dynasty than the 2 % difference in coaching from the other team
I dont think coaching in the nfl is a range from 0 percent to a 100, where some coaches are at 8 % and some at 98%. Like i said, i think it is more like 46 to 54