Brady and the Patriots

[TKUHL]

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?

[*jason*]

What similarities do you see between the Bengals and those Patriots teams?... 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.

[*KillerGoose*]

(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?

They would have had a harder time but I think the level of success would have been similar. The Patriots didn't really struggle against either the Steelers or Ravens during Brady's time there. When Brady left, he was 6-2 against the Ravens and 9-3 against the Steelers. 

He was 3-0 against the Steelers in the playoffs. 

Went 2-2 against the Ravens in the playoffs. 

It's definitely possible to have a dynasty in this division, but having a dynasty in the NFL is incredibly difficult. Being in a tough division makes it even more difficult. You have to hit on everything to make it happen. Elite QB, strong offensive supporting cast, strong defense, great coaching staff and great front office. That's what the Patriots had, and is why they were so successful. 

[c766]

(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?

I see zero similarities between the current bengals and the 2000s-2020 Pats teams. 

Aside from having a top QB. 

[Sled21]

The Patriots with Brady enjoyed the same thing KC enjoys now, playing in weak divisions that almost guarantee them a Division Championship, a first-round bye and home-field advantage. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills back in the Brady days couldn't get out of their own way.

[XsandOs]

(06-03-2025, 05:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote: The Patriots with Brady enjoyed the same thing KC enjoys now, playing in weak divisions that almost guarantee them a Division Championship, a first-round bye and home-field advantage. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills back in the Brady days couldn't get out of their own way.

Agree with your thoughts on KC. 

With Carrol, Payton and Harbaugh, the Chiefs domination of AFCW and AFC will be challenged. 

Bengals have been the only glitch in their dynasty this decade, but I' looking forward to AFCW pulverizing each other and opening the door for us.

We still have to find a solution to the two headed monster of Jackson and the boy with the Cross nose ring in Baltimore (I find that really disturbing BTW). But I truly feel our D-Line and LBs will stifle them.

[CottonHill]

lol there are zero similarities to the Patriots model. Quite the opposite actually.

[THE PISTONS]

The Bengals are a star driven team.

The Patriots had Brady, Moss at times, and Edelman, Welker, and Gronk.

Their defense was largely no name guys. They'd trade or let big names walk because they knew they could replace them. This is where the comparison with the Bengals falls short.

Patriots coaching and system is far superior.

The Bengals arent good at drafting and miss on free agents a decent bit.

The Steelers of Bradys time were way better than the current Steelers that the Bengals struggle with. Heck, the Bengals struggle with the Browns more than they should.

I'd venture to say the Patriots invested more money into winning too.

[THE PISTONS]

(06-03-2025, 03:47 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: They would have had a harder time but I think the level of success would have been similar. The Patriots didn't really struggle against either the Steelers or Ravens during Brady's time there. When Brady left, he was 6-2 against the Ravens and 9-3 against the Steelers. 

He was 3-0 against the Steelers in the playoffs. 

Went 2-2 against the Ravens in the playoffs. 

It's definitely possible to have a dynasty in this division, but having a dynasty in the NFL is incredibly difficult. Being in a tough division makes it even more difficult. You have to hit on everything to make it happen. Elite QB, strong offensive supporting cast, strong defense, great coaching staff and great front office. That's what the Patriots had, and is why they were so successful. 

The current day Steelers have been mediocre for a decade. They haven't won a playoff game in quite some time.

The Browns are bad every year too.

Our division isn't that tough now. People overrated the Steelers.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(06-03-2025, 09:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Steelers of Bradys time were way better than the current Steelers that the Bengals struggle with. Heck, the Bengals struggle with the Browns more than they should.

Burrow is 4-3 against the Steelers. Not sure I’d call that a “struggle.”

[c766]

A team that went to 9 Super Bowls and won 6 Super Bowls in a 20 year run

Vs a team who has never won one and has missed the playoffs the last 2 years.


The comparisons are endless

[J24]

If you look at Paul Brown and Bill philosophies on team building. You will find that they are identical philosophies. The problem with the Bengals is that know one in the current FO has the football brain that Bill has.

1.) Both organizations are heavily influenced by Paul Brown.

2.) They draft similar type players.

3.) Their both very cheap.

4.) They both have small scouting staffs.

[Sled21]

(06-03-2025, 09:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Bengals are a star driven team.

The Patriots had Brady, Moss at times, and Edelman, Welker, and Gronk.

Their defense was largely no name guys. They'd trade or let big names walk because they knew they could replace them. This is where the comparison with the Bengals falls short.

Patriots coaching and system is far superior.

The Bengals arent good at drafting and miss on free agents a decent bit.

The Steelers of Bradys time were way better than the current Steelers that the Bengals struggle with. Heck, the Bengals struggle with the Browns more than they should.

I'd venture to say the Patriots invested more money into winning too.

There's no arguing the Patriots were better at cheating...

[c766]

You know we have reached peak fan delusion when our fans think the current Bengals have a lot in common with the categorically greatest NFL Franchise of the last 35 years.

[BengalYankee]

(06-03-2025, 05:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote: The Patriots with Brady enjoyed the same thing KC enjoys now, playing in weak divisions that almost guarantee them a Division Championship, a first-round bye and home-field advantage. The Jets, Dolphins and Bills back in the Brady days couldn't get out of their own way.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-03-2025, 09:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Bengals are a star driven team.

The Patriots had Brady, Moss at times, and Edelman, Welker, and Gronk.

Their defense was largely no name guys. They'd trade or let big names walk because they knew they could replace them. This is where the comparison with the Bengals falls short.

Patriots coaching and system is far superior.

The Bengals arent good at drafting and miss on free agents a decent bit.

The Steelers of Bradys time were way better than the current Steelers that the Bengals struggle with. Heck, the Bengals struggle with the Browns more than they should.

I'd venture to say the Patriots invested more money into winning too.

Great points all around, but the bold is absolutely not true: they were made up of role players, with 2-3, "stars," (I mean PBers) every year. Bruschi, Devin McCourty, Hightower, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, Seymour , Lawyer Milloy, etc. and 2 of those guys are HOFers, let alone just PBers.

The 00s Patriots were chock full of stars on both sides.

They ALWAYS had pillars on D, surrounded by a bunch of role players, that's a fact, they were never, "no-name guys."

[Sled21]

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

[*ochocincos*]

The AFCE wasn't as good in the 2000's and 2010's as the AFCN had been, so it might have impacted their seeding or maybe getting WC vs division winner some years, but the Patriots were a 12+ win team most of those seasons.
They'd still have made the playoffs most of the years they did, even if they had an extra 1-3 losses.

So yea in terms of championships and deep postseason runs, I think it still would have likely ended up about the same, but they may not have made the playoffs a few of the seasons where they squeaked in but lost early.

[*ochocincos*]

(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....

I count 5 double-digit win seasons there.
Are you saying only 11+ wins is considered good but 10 wins is considered mediocre?

[Sled21]

(06-04-2025, 02:01 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I count 5 double-digit win seasons there.
Are you saying only 11+ wins is considered good but 10 wins is considered mediocre?

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.