y*so*blu Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 The 2000s Patriots were less consistent in the playoffs, missing them completely for three of those years (if you count 2000), but they had stiffer competition at the time. The Dolphins and Jets were still very good teams in the early years of their dynasty, and even the Bills weren't pushovers. Everything was tougher for them, and it made their accomplishments more memorable. Even when you leave out the Super Bowls, the highs (David Patten's incredible one-man show against Indy in '01, defeating the Giants to finish a perfect regular season, fighting off Brian Urlacher and the surging Bears in '02, losing Brady for most of the '08 season and still winning 11 games) were as dramatic as the lows (The Lawyer Milloy saga that ended with his new team crushing New England 31-0, Brady still trying to fire up his teammates when they were dive-bombed by Peyton Manning's Colts in '05, getting stomped by Baltimore in the wild card to finish '09). The 2000s also contained the one playoff game I wish the Patriots had lost, which was their three-point divisional win over Tennessee. For all those reasons, I'll take that decade over this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x0x Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 I took the 00s because of being Top Heavy. The defense on those Pats teams was considerably better than anything 2010-present. I'm sorry. Maybe not 2001 but certainly 2003-04 & 07. I also like a younger Brady and some of those seasons with Core Dillon, Moss, Welker, etc. On 2/13/2019 at 11:07 AM, Calvert28 said: Here's a better question would you call these 2 decades 2 dyanasties or just one continuous dynasty. I'm leaning with the latter. As for the topic itself. I would say their about even. It's 2 for me. The separation between 2007-2011 is what does it for me, as well as no titles from 2005-2013. I can't just ignore that massive a gap because of AFC titles appearances and Super Bowl losses. It's basically 2001-2007 and 2014-present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobikus Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/13/2019 at 10:07 PM, patriotsheatyan said: The 2010s Patriots have better numbers, but I feel like the 00 Patriots had tougher competition in the post season without any actual evidence to back that up. Yeah, the AFC was a lot tougher in the 00s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP3MVP Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 I don’t see how the early 00’s patriots had better competition. The 01 rams are better than any team the patriots faced from 10 on but that’s about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 1, 2019 Author Share Posted March 1, 2019 On 2/27/2019 at 7:55 AM, CP3MVP said: I don’t see how the early 00’s patriots had better competition. The 01 rams are better than any team the patriots faced from 10 on but that’s about it. 2000’s Colts and Steelers and Chargers were legit. Don’t know if they were better than any of the early 2010’s Broncos teams, KC and LA this year, the Jags last year or some of the Ravens teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP3MVP Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, lancerman said: 2000’s Colts and Steelers and Chargers were legit. Don’t know if they were better than any of the early 2010’s Broncos teams, KC and LA this year, the Jags last year or some of the Ravens teams I don’t see what makes the colts teams better than the broncos teams from 2012-2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.