No doubt in my mind we beat Denver if that game is at home. We were every bit as good as Denver that year. Peyton outdoors in january is not shredding us like he did that 2nd half. :smile: Pete Beathard threw 3 INts in the first game w/ Miami and they won comfortably. This was not BobDavis' first action of the season, he played extensively the week before so the 3 days to get ready thing doesn't fly. I might be able to buy that for one year but 2 straight years at .500? That's a .500 team. It doesn't matter what they did in 1967, why does '67 matter and not '63-'74 where they had only one winning season? They were a medicore franchise. By the way, the '67 team lost 40-7 in the playoffs. It was nothing more than a mediocre franchise at that time. why do we get credit for choing down the stretch in 1967? we finished 2nd to a team that lost 40-7 in the playoffs. 1967 was not a success, it was the first step towards respectability but it was not a success in terms of winning. That's like considering 2008 a success in recent history.
Ok. Here we go. There is nothing in my post that is incorrect. There were 5 teams in the AFL East in 1968. That means the Jets had a 1 in 5 chance to win the division. That is 20%. There were no wild cards back then. It IS far easier to make the playoffs today. My math is correct. The Jets have 4 teams in the AFC East now - giving them a 1 in 4 chance to win each year, or 25%. The Jets are not relegated to a wild card every year or only a 17% chance to make the playoffs. The addition of the wild card ON TOP of the division championship as a means to a playoff berth adds to the probability that a team makes the playoffs in today's NFL. So if today's Jets don't win the division, they have an additional 17% to earn a wild card berth. Without boring you with the math, that comes out to a 37.5 % to make the playoffs vs 20% in 1968. You have to factor winning the division plus winning a wild card to calculate the probability of making the playoffs. It is also not fair or rational to downgrade the 1968 Jets for winning the division and raising up the current for not winning it. The Jets were good enough to beat their main competition in the division in 1968. The current Jets not being good enough to unseat the Pats, despite the Pats not winning a championship beyond 2004, is more an indictment of the current Jets than anything. The Pats winning multiple division titles in the 2000s proves that they were a better team than the Jets in that era, who have won one division title in this time period and with a 9-7 record. Nothing else in my post was wrong. No other Jets team has come close to winning 80% of its games and no Jets player has won the awards that Namath won that year.
It's greater than 17% but it's not 37.5%, it is not 6 in 16 b/c you cannot win each division. It's 1 in 4 or 2 in 12 against better competition than we saw in 1968. I don't know what the accurate # should be but you can't say 6 in 16. 1968 is #1, don't confuse anything else I have posted. It's not debateable which team has been the best BUT they did have an ultra easy road in a weak division then essentially getting a bye as the 2 western teams played a week earlier and despite a lesser record and losing to Oak they got to host them w/ essentially a bye needing one home win to get to the SB. I very much appreciate what the SB III team did but that doesn't mean I cannot be honest about them too. My point about all of this was w/o question '68 is best but this is the best era b/c we have had sustained success which we didn't have in the 60s/70s. Just like w/ the Namath debate I think a big reason was Namath's health but it still counts.
As I sit here in my Namath underoos, I agree it is no contest. The odds of making the 2011 playoffs are 37.5 % - 25% for winning the division plus 12.5 % for winning a wild card (.17 (odds of winning a wild card) x .75 ( the odds of not winning a division)). Take a basic statistics course if you don't understand the math.
It's 1 in 4 plus 2 of 12. What basis do you have for saying that it is not 37.5 % except, as usual, you just can't admit you are/were wrong.
You can't combine the 2, they are seperate especially when we have a dynatsy team dominating the division. the 20% in '68 was much greater of a chance than the 25% to win the div in recent times b/c the div was so weak. Again, it's not 6 of 16 b/c we can't win the south, north or west. It was MUCH easier to get to a SB in 1968 than it has been in 2009 or 2010. Sometimes logic overtakes #s.
If you take the amount of numbers in every Junc post and put them up against the amount of numbers in every other post in the history of TGG, Junc wins in a landslide.
My God. Can't you see that you have to combine the two????? There are two ways to make the playoffs now as opposed to one then. You have to factor both in.
Since when is it an easy path to the Super Bowl when: 1(the Jets had to defeat one team that was 13-2 and was considered the best team in the AFL to get to the Super Bowl and 2) beat the all powerful NFL in the Super Bowl for the first time - including beating a Colts team that many considered to be among the best teams of all time in the Super Bowl. How you can call beating a team that was favored to win by 18-21 points an easy path defies comprehension.
The current Jets have the equivlant of the 60's Packers in their division with the greatest QB of all time along with a HC who is maybe the greatest defensive coach in NFL history plus he isnt beyond getting a little edge when needed. When you look at it that way the Jets can't win the division so their only path is through the wild card or 12.5%. If the 68 Jets had the 66 Packers in their division in 1968 and Lombardi not only had an occassional edge but Tom Brady was his QB well than it's patently obvious the 68 Jets wouldn't have made it to the SB, they wouldn't have made it to the playoffs at all. Clearly by any statistically measure when you take into account the Dynasty, the QB, the HC and the little edge which we won't mention, this Jets team has the harder road to the playoffs. When you think about it it's remarkable that we ever make it to the playoffs It's like groundhog day every year with the Pats, Tom Brady and their HC. We have to literally go through a SB team just to make the playoffs even if they haven't actually won a playoff game in years or a SB in 7 years.
The Pats may have prevented the Jets from winning division titles, but in just about every year the Jets made the playoffs from 2001 on, they were the 5 or 6 seed with 9 or 10 wins while division winners in other divisions besides the East had 12, 13, or 14 wins. The Jets have not played at home in the playoffs in the past decade because the Jets have not been good enough to host a playoff game and have barely made the playoffs each year, not because of the Pats. Plus, in all those years, they lost to the Pats in the playoffs only once.
The Packers were 6-7-1 in 1968. I don't think they would have kept the Jets from winning anything. The Jets beat the equivalent of the "Packers" in 68 by beating the Raiders and the Colts in the playoffs.
Let's talk about 1969. Did you know that the Jets had to play their first 5 games on the road because the Mets were in the World Series. People go ballistic over the 2011 Jets playing 3 in a row on the road. The 69 Jets played their first five in a row on the road!! And the reason the Oilers were a .500 team in 68 and 69 was because they couldn't beat the Jets. The Jets were to the Oilers what you are claiming the Pats are to the current Jets. Of Houston's 13 losses in 68-69, 4 were to the Jets, 3 to KC, 2 to Oakland, and 2 to SD (who was also a good team). If Houston wins those 4 games against the Jets, they win 2 division titles and not the Jets.
The Jets won 9 games in 2009 and Indy won 14. On what planet would the Jets be hosting a championship game against the Colts under those circumstances? Talk about ifs and buts.
As for beating Denver in 1998, explain why the Jets were 10 point underdogs in that game if the teams were so evenly matched? And, under your standards, that game should have been a cake walk for the Jets. If 1968 was served up on a silver platter because the Jets only had to beat a powerhouse team from the NFL who was expected to beat the Jets by 3 TDs, beating a team who was only considered 10 points better than the Jets should have been a breeze, especially with a 10 point lead.
Again,this argument is absurd. Beating the 68 Raiders and 68 Colts was an easy road?????? Yes the Jets have been consistently good from 98 to the present and this is the best sustained period of good football in Jets history, but the 68 team was great and had to beat two powerhouse teams to win a championship. The current Jets have not been able to beat two (or even one) powerhouse teams in one playoff season and that is why there has been no title. If the 68 Jets played the Oilers in the playoffs and then faced a team like the 1998 Falcons in the Super Bowl, you could say it was an easy path. But they beat two great teams. Stop with the easy path silver lining BS.
What do you think of the 1972 Dolphins? They are considered by many to be the best team in NFL history because they went 17-0, but have you looked at their schedule that year? They beat NOBODY. The best teams they played were the 8-6 Chiefs and the 8-6 Giants. The rest of their wins came against teams that were .500 or worse and 9 of 14 wins came against teams that won 5 games or less. They barely beat Cleveland in the first round of the playoffs and won a squeaked by Pittsburgh in the title game. Then they beat Washington in the Super Bowl, who was 11-3 that year, but two of the three losses were to the lowly AFC East Bills (4-10) and Pats (3-11). Should we revoke the Dolphins title that year because of the ridiculously easy gold lined path they had to a title???
Exactly that's why I said if the 66 Packers were in the Jets division in 68. You have to follow the logic or this simply isn't going to work.
There’s no doubt we could win that game against the Broncos, but to say there’s no doubt we would win that game is a bit unrealistic. That Broncos team was really good. Davis wasn’t going to start that game until 3 days before gameday. That has an effect on the team and his play. They played terrible mostly because of the QB play. He played for two drives against the Raiders when they were down by 15 w/ 10 minutes left. That’s not extensively. I’m not saying the Oilers were the same team in 68 as they were in 67 but they had won the division in 67, so they proved they could win. But in 68 they had a really tough schedule (especially early in the season) and the Jets got better. In 67 the Jets proved they could play with some of the league’s best teams and the team was starting to come together. Yeah, they collapsed (and don’t forget they lost Boozer for the season after his amazing start) but ultimately that helped them win it all the next year as they became more focused and realized how close they got in 67. Yeah, the 67 Oilers got destroyed in the playoffs…by one of, if not the best team in AFL history.
