There are currently 12 teams that make the playoffs out of 32 teams. That would mean it’s 3 times easier to make the playoffs than it was in 1966.Not when you need only to finish fourth.And you have 8 playoff spots to qualify as opposed to 2. The entire season was a playoff sequence.Packers needed to beat out 13 other teams to win the championship
You went through a 14 game seaso and went right to the championship
Now, you have to beat out 31 other teams and win at least three playoff games
That is true. Imagine if all you needed was the best record in the Conference? OI think both of those have a flip side, but just numerically, finishing on top of a 10-16 team league is much easier than finishing on top of a 32 team league.
In a 16 team league, making the Championship is the same as having a top 2 record in the AFC. (top 2 teams in a 16 team league by record with the 60's Packers winning some with a 14 team league... or bye week in the 16 team AFC playoffs). 12 times the Patriots have done that under Brady.
Now instead of that top 2 record getting them an automatic ticket to the championship game, it gets them a bye week where they have to win 2 more playoff games. All your dominance all year for your record resets... twice, to sniff the SB.
So the equivalent of 12 Championship game appearances that they would have in a 16 team league. If you don't want to round for the packers favor, you can take out two teams for the 14 team league the Packers 60's dynasty started in, and you'd have an expected rate of 13.7 championship game appearances.
1967 divided the league into 4 divisions so 4 teams of 16 made the post-season. That still would equate to only 8 teams now as opposed to 12.
The current 16-game season allows for a greater chance to make up for earlier losses. Combined, it’s much easier now to make the post-season than in Starr’s era.
The rules changes that currently protect QBs now also allow for longer careers.
So what you are saying is that instead of 6 playoff teams in the AFC, back then it would have been the equivalent of 4 (4 of top 16).
The problem with that, is that Brady has not once played a road wild card game (5/6 seed position). So not once has he been able to take advantage of slipping in the playoffs with one of those lower seeds. Instead, where Starr as a 4 seed would be able to get a pass in the wild card, and go on to face the 1 seed in the divisional week post-1966, Brady as a 4 seed would have to play and win a wild card game to advance to that point. Or Pre-1966 where Starr as a top 2 seed could automatically make the championship, Brady as a top 2 seed had to win two postseason games to get there.
Remember, Brady won 78% of his starts. Starr won 60% of his. Brady would not have a harder time making the post-season in Starr's era. He'd just have a lot easier run to the championship game once he was there.
For his first 10 years, Starr was able to make the playoffs being one of the top 2-3 teams in the NFL of 14 teams. One year it was tougher (1966), and after that it was back to easier (3 and 4 seeds didn't have to win a wild card game to make it to divisional round, they automatically advanced).
And while the current 16 game season gives you a better chance to make up for losses, it also puts less emphasis on individual wins as well. For example the 2007 NYG might beat the pats in a 1 game series, but if you turn that into a best of 5, does it become easier or harder?
So while it's easier for teams overall to make the post-season, it's harder for the top teams to advance in the post-season. Which is why Starr only had to win 9 games for 5 championships. and Brady had to win 18 for his 6.
Brady's not getting the benefit of that 5/6 seed, but rather having to face them to advance to the spot where Starr's teams automatically got.
Lastly I do agree that rules changes help QB's. The Packers starting D-line averaged 245 lbs when Starr came into the league. They averaged 307 lbs last year. The NFL had to do something as those players not only became bigger, but stronger and faster. And QB's are no longer throwing 15-20 times a game, but 25-35.
I fully agree a player can extend their career and their prime today. That has to do with those rule changes, medical advances (Brady's 08 ACL might have been a career ender 40 years earlier), but also players diets and off-season regimens.
And then you can get into outplaying your peers. Besides Brady setting his team in a top 2 seed out of 16 teams more often than Starr did with 16 or 14, his play has been more consistent.
Every year Brady's QB rating has been at least 10% higher than the league average. Starr's wasn't for 5 years, nearly 1/3 of his career.
Every year Brady's INT and TD rates have been better than lg avg every year but one. 9 times that's happened for Starr.
Starr won one MVP in a league with half the players as Brady, and Brady's won 3.
besides coming out on top on efficiency numbers vs. his peers, Brady has led the league in yards or TD's for volume numbers 5 times. Starr.... zero.
So not only is he making the post-season (even by those older standards) more often than Starr, he's outplaying his peers moreso than Starr in both efficiency and volume..
Like I said, it is difficult comparing across era's.