Brady and the Patriots

[Millhouse]

(06-03-2025, 03:37 PM)TKUHL Wrote: I was just curious what everyone thinks. Does anyone think Brady or even the whole team would have had the success they did if they were in the AFCN? I see similarities with NE at the time to today’s Bengals.

In short I guess my question is. Is it possible to even have a dynasty in todays AFCN?

The first part there needs a bit more specifics if I can be a bit honest. Is that having success back in those years, or success with current AFC N teams? And which team would the Pats replace in the North? 

I ask that because if they are replacing the Steelers or Ravens in the 2000s to 2010s, then that makes the answer a bit easier, which is most probably yes. Because then they would be facing the Browns and Bengals twice a year. If they are replacing the Browns though, it would be a bit tougher for sure, as they would be facing three playoff caliber teams (Bengals being the weakest of the 3 they would be facing) in those years.

But is it possible to have a dynasty in the AFCN these days? Yes it is possible in theory, but very unlikely with the current makeup of the players on these teams, and/or front offices of Bengals, Browns, and Steelers.

[PCB Bengal Fan]

(06-03-2025, 08:47 PM)CottonHill Wrote: lol there are zero similarities to the Patriots model. Quite the opposite actually.

The Patriots cheated......we don't even think about doing that.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-04-2025, 03:29 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The first part there needs a bit more specifics if I can be a bit honest. Is that having success back in those years, or success with current AFC N teams? And which team would the Pats replace in the North? 

I ask that because if they are replacing the Steelers or Ravens in the 2000s to 2010s, then that makes the answer a bit easier, which is most probably yes. Because then they would be facing the Browns and Bengals twice a year. If they are replacing the Browns though, it would be a bit tougher for sure, as they would be facing three playoff caliber teams (Bengals being the weakest of the 3 they would be facing) in those years.

But is it possible to have a dynasty in the AFCN these days? Yes it is possible in theory, but very unlikely with the current makeup of the players on these teams, and/or front offices of Bengals, Browns, and Steelers.

Here's a harsh reality... in that timespan, we were worse than both the Jets and Dolphins and barely better than the Bills.

2000-2019 we were 145-172-3 with 0 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Jets were 148-172 with 6 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Bills were 137-183 with 0 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Dolphins were 149-171 with 1 playoff win.

We went 25-15 against the Browns and 120-157-3 against everyone else. So no, the Patriots wouldn't have had to face three playoff caliber teams in those years.

[BengalYankee]

(06-04-2025, 10:27 AM)BengalYankee Wrote:

(06-04-2025, 01:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Brady was with the Patriots from 2000-2019. The Jets record during that time starting in 2000
9-7
10-6
9-7
6-10
10-6
4-12
10-6
4-12
9-7
9-7
11-5
8-8
6-10
8-8
4-12
10-6
5-11
5-11
4-12
7-9

So they had 1 good year and a couple of mediocre years. Like I said....

    
  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-04-2025, 01:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote: So they had 1 good year and a couple of mediocre years. Like I said....

Jets in 4-year Mark Sanchez era: 34-30 (.531%) regular season, 4-2 postseason
Bengals in 5-year Joe Burrow era: 44-38-1 (.536%) regular season, 5-2 postseason

[Millhouse]

(06-04-2025, 04:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Here's a harsh reality... in that timespan, we were worse than both the Jets and Dolphins and barely better than the Bills.

2000-2019 we were 145-172-3 with 0 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Jets were 148-172 with 6 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Bills were 137-183 with 0 playoff wins.
2000-2019 the Dolphins were 149-171 with 1 playoff win.

We went 25-15 against the Browns and 120-157-3 against everyone else. So no, the Patriots wouldn't have had to face three playoff caliber teams in those years.

I was referring to the Marvin years; I completely left out those three just before him which were brutal. Granted they didn't make playoffs every year, but were a 500 team over his tenure. Just yap talk.

[Nepa]

Well, the Patriots during the Brady years famously had a 33-3 record against the Bills, so having the Bills in the division helped the Patriots greatly to start out with virtually 2 guaranteed wins each year.

I'm not sure of the Patriots record against the Jets, but I have seen listed a record of 31 and 8 including the playoffs (about 80% win rate). Again, almost a guaranteed 2 division wins each year.

The Dolphins could offer them a challenge with the Patriots having a record of 24-12 (as far as I can compute). That is winning at the rate of 2 out of 3.

So, yes, the Patriots being in the AFC East was a big factor in their getting 5 or 6 wins each year toward the best conference record and, of course, the inside track on winning the division each year.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-04-2025, 02:44 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Based on the fact a lot of seasons 10 wins will not get you into the playoffs in certain divisions, yeah, that's the number where I draw the line. And I'm not knocking the Patriots, under Brady they were amazing. That doesn't negate the fact they played in a weak division. 

I consider 10-6 to have been more on the good side because in a lot of cases where 10-6 didn't get into the playoffs, it was because of tiebreakers.

For example, 2015 the Jets were 10-6 but didn't make the playoffs, but the 10-6 Steelers did.
Jets made the playoffs in 2001, 2004, and 2006 at 10-6.
They also made the playoffs and had a deep run in 2010 when they went 11-5.

My mediocre for the 16-game seasons was between 7-9 wins.

I don't disagree with you thought that overall when comparing AFCE to AFCN between 2001-2018 or whenever Brady left NE, the AFCE was overall weaker.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(06-03-2025, 03:46 PM)jason Wrote: But yeah. I think they'd have done just fine in the AFC North. They had to go through Baltimore and Pittsburgh in the playoffs a time or two.

They didn’t however have to go through them twice every year.

It’s less about the win record as the cumulative physical toll.

I think the good news is that the Bengals-Steelers games have lost a notch in their ferocity but the AFC North remains a very physical division.

[Nepa]

(Yesterday, 11:44 AM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: They didn’t however have to go through them twice every year.

It’s less about the win record as the cumulative physical toll.

I think the good news is that the Bengals-Steelers games have lost a notch in their ferocity but the AFC North remains a very physical division.

And with that, Aaron Rogers has now informed the Steelers he plans to sign with them. And so that matchup just got harder.

[SunsetBengal]

I'm not one to typically think that a thread wasn't a good idea, but I fail to see any parallels between the Dynasty era Patriots and the Burrow led Bengal era. The Patriots teams were built with strong lines on both sides of the ball, aka "from the inside out", whereas the Bengals like to build their team around big name offensive stars and pretty much screw it on the fundamental positions.

[jj22]

(Yesterday, 05:20 PM)Nepa Wrote: And with that, Aaron Rogers has now informed the Steelers he plans to sign with them. And so that matchup just got harder.

[Nepa]

thanks, JJ22. I fixed it now.

[Sled21]

(Yesterday, 05:20 PM)Nepa Wrote: And with that, Aaron Rogers has now informed the Steelers he plans to sign with them. And so that matchup just got harder.

He won't last 6 games.

[3wt]

(Yesterday, 05:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not one to typically think that a thread wasn't a good idea, but I fail to see any parallels between the Dynasty era Patriots and the Burrow led Bengal era. The Patriots teams were built with strong lines on both sides of the ball, aka "from the inside out", whereas the Bengals like to build their team around big name offensive stars and pretty much screw it on the fundamental positions.

Right?