but you can't combine the two b/c they are completely seperate. -next best team in division was a .500 team -essentially got a bye while Oak-KC played a week earlier -lost to oak and had worse record than oak yet still hosted Oak in title game -played one game(at HOME) to reach the SB It couldn't have been much easier to get to the SB, win ning it was a different story. That was against a great team but getting there was pretty simple. We also tended to get swept by the Pats(until the last 2 years) and it's a huge psychological advantage that the Pats have had, if our next best team in the div was 8-8 we would have won numerous div titles and hopsted numerous playoff games. Ok and they laso played 7 straight home games after that. The Jets played 3 in a row on the road, 2 against elie teams and the other a WC trip against a team that had its first sellout in years. The '69 jets opened: @ 4-10 Buf @5-8-1 Den @8-6 SD @4-10 Pats @4-9-1 Cincy see any difference? then they got 7 straight home games. It doesn't matter why the Oilers were a .500 team, they were for 2 straight years. They had 8 less wins than us int hose 2 years. The same planet where the raiders had a better record AND beat the Jets then had to travel to play the Jets in the title game. The '72 phins are not the greatest team in NFL history, they aren't even the greatest dolphin team('73 was). They played the easiest sched of any SB champ facing zero playoff bound teams and just 2 winning teams(barely) all season. I don't care if the Oilers played the '85 bears they shouldn't get destoryed like that. The raiders also got crushed in the SB right after humiliating that "great" Oilers team. houston was an average franchise in those years.
Did I say they were great? Don't put quotes on words you add in and try to make it look like I said that. The Raiders lost to the Packers who were arguably the greatest dynasty in football history. The Oilers were better than their record indicated they were in 1968. The Jets of the late 60's is the greatest era in Jets history.
You are trying to make them out to be mroe than they were which was a mediocre team. The Oilers were not better than their record, they were exactly what their record showed us.
I'm not trying to make them out to be more than they were. I was pointing out that they were a better team than their record indicated. Which is true. They were the "best of the rest" but had 6 games against the elite teams in the AFL. Either way, they weren't going to win the division even if you take away two of those games and had them play an extra game against the Bengals and Broncos instead because the Jets were the dominant team.
How is that true? for 11 years they had ONE winning record and in that year they were humiliated in their playoff game. They are essentially the 2004-current Miami Dolphins
What did 11 years later have to do with 1968? They were a better team than their record indicated. They had a solid defense and a good running game. They were an above average team but were not as good as the elite teams in the league who they played 6 times during the year.
11 years of mediocrity doesn't tell us anything but one winning record in '67 beofre they got smashed in the playoffs tells us they were better than their record in '68? Those teams were the definition of mediocrity.
The 68 Oilers were better than their record indicates because they had a solid defense and a good running game. The 67 team had more of a relation to the 68 Oilers than the 72 & 73 teams did so what exactly is your point? Did I say they were an elite team? I said they were an above average team (which they were) who weren't good enough to beat the elite teams. Either way the 68 Jets were the dominant team in the Eastern Division, so all this conversation regarding the other teams in the division is pointless. The Jets defeated the top teams in the AFL that year then beat the best team the NFL had to offer.
Thge '68 oiler team was medicore as was '67 and '69, I would argue they weren't as good as their record in '67 vs. being better than their record in '68 and could justify it by their playoff humiliations in '67 and '69. The Jets had an easy road to the SB then defeated a great team in the SB.
I think 11 years of mediocirty back up my point along w/ the 2 playoff apps where they were humiliated.
Good arguments fellas. While we're in a very good stretch right now, I need a division championship in my pocket in order for this group to crack the top 3 all-time Jets teams. Getting to an AFC Championship via Wild card just isn't the same to me. Right now I can't claim we're better than the Pats over the past few years despite the great playoff win, which is right up there amongst my all-time favorite Jets moments. I can't forget that they also kicked our ass once too. With so many playoff teams it really is a tournament. There can't possibly be any team other than the SB3 team at the top. After that, I'll go with the '98 team followed by the '81-82 team. We should have won it all in '98, (or even 99 had Parcells had a reliable back-up behind Vinny) and we should have had a better run of success in the sack exchange years. Subjective, I know. The sack exchange teams felt better than they were because of the long stretch of bad teams and seasons preceding them. As a Jets fan those were great times for me personally.
You're going to justify your argument based off of one game in which they were thoroughly outplayed by arguably the greatest team in AFL History? Unfortunately it's not just black and white like that. They were a good team in 67 and an above average team in 68. They had a good defense and a good running game. They were not an easy win. The 68 Jets went 5-1 against teams with a combined record of 46-10 on their way to a SB Title. So no matter how "easy" you think the road was for them, when they played the elite teams they won.
I think the Colts had 1 loss that year before SB3 & according to the media & the pundits they were a team of superman & that is why we were 17 1/2 or so points underdogs :smile:
I'm going to justify my argument w/ Houston being a .500 team in '68 & '69 and losing 2 playoff games(1 in '67, 1 in '69) by a combined score of 96-14. It's pretty much a slam dunk case, there's no way to argue around it. Were the '69 raidres argubaly the greatest AFL team of all time too? They lost by an even larger margin that year. The '68 Jets played 3 teams w/ winning records en route to the div title in a div where the 2nd place team was .500. They then got to play a home game w/ essentially a bye(that they didn't earn) then got to play one game for the right to go to the SB, that one game coming at home against a team that beat them in the reg season and a team that had a better record than them. It was a creampuff road to the SB.
So U R claiming without seeing the game live & in person that the Oak/NYJ PO game was a creampuff game? :jets:
