All teams had the same "easy road" back in the 50s and 60s. In '67 a 9-4-1 Packers team got a home play-off game against a red-hot 11-1-2 LA Ram team, and beat them handily. They went on to beat Dallas in the Ice Bowl (another team w/a better record) Does that diminish their greatness The '68 Jets defeated a great Oakland Raider team who waltzed into the match-up by "squeaking" by KC at 41-6. That game took nothing out of the Raiders and they played what might have been the the best and hardest fought championship game in AFL history. In retrospect, the Raiders might have been better than the Colts that season. SBIII victory against the Colts speaks for itself. The '68 Jets beat the two best teams in football in back to back games, in the hardest level of competition available at that time. The current Jets are a well-coached team who rise to the occasion in big games. But they were not as talented as the '68 Jets. If the Jets make the play-off this season, it will be the first time they ever made the play-offs three years in a row. That's definitely saying something. But until they win a Super Bowl, you can't say they are better than the '68 Jets.
Plus the 1968-1969 Jet teams had three Hall of Famers (Namath, Maynard, Ewbank), plus two guys in Hill and Philbin who probably should be Hall of Famers, plus Sauer, who was on a Hall of Fame pace before prematurely retiring. This Jet team has Revis, whose a future Hall of Famer, no doubt,,, maybe Mangold if he continues at his career pace and that's it. They don't have a Hall of Fame QB in his prime or any WR close to Maynard.
Did GB get a bye? was the next best team in their div a .500 team? did they play only 3 teams above .500? The jets earned that title and that's the best team in our history but we are still allowed to be honest and say they had an easy road to the SB. They beat really good teams in oak and Bal but we still had a very easy road to get to the SB.
It's easy to look back and say that, we don't know who will be HOFers and if we win a SB that will enhance the chances we get more guys. Rex could be a HOF coach, Mangold, Revis, Brick,...
Well if you think the Oilers coached by Bill Peterson was the same as the 67 & 68 teams then I’m not going to just take this standing down and let you say these incorrect statements. I’m going to line up all of your arguments alphabetically by height. It’s all about one word junc. One word. "Super Bowl" and the 1968 Jets delivered that. In all seriousness, comparing the those teams to teams from 72 & 73 is just silly. The 67 team was a good team and the 68 was an above average team. I don’t know where the 85 Bears came into the conversation. If the game before hurt them then why did they have a lead w/ 8 mins left in the game? And then they marched right down the field after the Maynard TD before losing the ball on a lateral? The fact is we were 5-1 vs. teams w/ a 46-10 combined record. That’s extremely impressive no matter how you slice it. Note – The strange piece of my first paragraph were taken from actual Bill Peterson quotes.
It's mind boggling the fact that you can use as your main argument that the Oilers were better thant heir record when they were just a .500 team 2 straight years and in the year they had a better than .500 record they got smoked in the playoffs. The facts are: Our division was WEAK we got the beenfot of a bye we didn't earn we got to play Oak whom played the week before and had a better record than us and beat us we played just 3 above .500 teams You can give me all the if's and excuses you want but those are facts that cannot be disputed.
The facts are we were 5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. The facts are the Oilers were a better team than their record indicates. What if's and excuses (seems to be your favorite word) have I used.
That includes 2 wins over the .500 Oilers we were 1-1 against oak and KC in the reg season- the ONLY 2 quality teams in the AFL that year besides the Jets. The facts are the Oilers were what their record indicated. 2 straight .500 seasons tell us all we need to know. Using your logic we weren't as good as 11-3 since we only beat 2 winning teams all reg season and we lost to 2 pathetic teams.
No it doesn't vs. KC 1-0 vs. SD 2-0 vs. Oak 1-1 vs. Bal 1-0 The facts are the Oilers had a good defense a good running game but weren't as good as the elite teams in the league where they went 0-6 5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record proves we were a strong team.
You don't even have your favorite players name spelled correctly. You lose the ability to call anything dumb.
You are unbelievable. You just never give in, even when you are dead wrong. Yes, the Jets won the AFL East handily in 1968. After that, there was no easy road. The playoffs back then pitted one division champion against the other. The Chiefs and Raiders tied for the Western Division title. The rule then was a playoff game. The Jets didn't earn a "bye" they didn't deserve!! That was how division ties were broken. What should the AFL have done, made the Jets play a game that weekend also? How should that tie been broken in your mind? What would have made it fair? That scenario is no different than what used to occur in baseball for decades when the NL and AL champ played in the WS with no playoffs. If there was a tie, the tied teams played a playoff while the team from the other league rested its pitching staff. Using your logic how many "easy" roads did your beloved Yankees have when they won the AL over inferior competition and only had to beat some NL team in one 7 game series to win a title???? From that point on, the Jets did not have any easy games by a long shot. They had to play the best two teams in the NFL to win a title. I don't care if the games are played in a parking lot, beating a 13-2 team and then a 14-1 team considered to be the best team of all time going into the Super Bowl is no "easy road." It is as hard as it gets to win a title. Any time you beat the two best teams in football (or I should say the 2nd and 3rd best teams since the Jets ended the season as the best team) it is no easy road to the championship. The Jets played 6 games against teams with winning records and went 5-1 against those teams. The only game they lost was the Heidi Bowl, which Oakland pulled out at the last minute. As for the AFL Championship game, you have no idea - not a single clue in the world - how that game would have turned out had it been played in Oakland. Nobody does. The game at Shea that day was played in bitter cold and high winds. Who is to say that the weather didn't favor the more physical Raiders????? Who is to say that the weather hampered the Jets passing game more than the Raiders???? Who is to say how anything would have turned out if the game were played in good weather in Oakland??? The bottom line is that the Jets beat a very very good Oakland team to earn a trip to the Super Bowl. Beating a 13-2 team is no easy feat, even at home. It is not as if the Jets played the .500 Oilers team you so easily denigrate in the AFL Championship. Many Super Bowl champions have played weak teams in the league championship game or the Super Bowl itself. That is not so with the 68 Jets. The accomplishments of that team in the playoffs are by far the best postseason accomplishments of any Jets team. Just beating a heavily favored Colts team in the Super Bowl was an amazing feat. Easy road my ass.
I think Junc has what I will classify as "I hate any NYJ team that won a World Championship & I was not there to see it " . It goes right along with the losers syndrome in which you have seen so much losing by the NYJs that now they have a better record then some years back they are now "successful" when it reality they are not since we are still devoid of SB win #2 :smile:
This is dead on. The arguement that just "making" the playoffs as a WC team and "losing" two AFCCG's is more significant than winning the most important Super Bowl in NFL history is laughable at best.
I'm sorry I missed the mighty Chargers who only beat one winning team all year so I guess that means they were worse than their record? There were 3 good teams in the AFL in 1968, we went 1-1 against those teams in the reg season. The facts are the Oilers were .500 for 2 straight years, they were the definition of mediocrity. I'm am 100% correct, all the facts back me up. They did get a bye they didn't earn, they got lucky the other 2 teams tied and forced a playoff. 2 teams who both had better records than the Jets. Today this would have been equivalent to NE playing Pitt last year in the div rd and us getting a bye to to the title game then facing the winner at home. You don't think that would have been a HUGE advantage for us? We still had to beat a quality team in Oakland and that wasn't easy BUT we had a worse record, lost to them and essentially had a bye- not to mention the easy division we played in. It was an easy road to the SB, we got lucky. Why can't you guys admit this? They still got the job done and deserve all the respect in the world for that but iot was an easy road to the SB. The Yanks played 154 games and proved they were the best in their league before facing the NL Champ. A little different than finishing w/ the 3rd best record int he AFL and hosting a title game w/ a bye- don't you think? Maybe we win in Oakland? But I guarantee you it would have been much more difficult to win. Teams whine about travelling coast to coast today w/ the modern comforts of chartered planes, to my knowledge they didn't have that in january of 1969. Why dio teams fight for homefield if it means nothing? yes we COULD have won but it would have been MUCH more difficult. It was an amazing job to beat the Colts(more b/c of how underrated the AFL was when you look back) but that doesn't take away from the easy road to get to that game.
I'm not really comparing the '09 or '10 jets to the '68 Jets, '68 stands alone b/c they won it all. My point in this is that the current era which has seen a ton of playoff apps and playoff wins is better than that era where we only saw 2 playoff apps and 2 playoff wins. The '68 team had a creampuff road to the SB, their division's next best team was .500, in our division we have the Pats- slight difference, right? They got their conf title game at home, got a bye they didn't earn b/c Oak and KC(2 teams w/ better records playing in a better division) tied the had to win just one game at HOME to get to the SB- could a road get much easier? 1968 is 100% w/o a doubt the greatest team in Jets history but I can still talk honestly about that team and not worship them just b/c they brought us our only title.
I think there is a difference between a road that was not as hard as it could have been and a road that was 'easy'. It's not fair to say they didn't earn their bye - they won their division outright which neither the Chiefs nor the Raiders were able to do. If one division was stronger than the other, tough. That happens every year, even now. What the '68 Jets achieved was unsurpassable so far as a single season was go. All that can be done is to match it. Tend to agree, however, that as two year runs go 09-10 was a lot of fun. If you're not winning the trophy then 'fun' and 'hope' are all you can realistically ask for.
& U have still not replied what this statement has gotten us "My point in this is that the current era which has seen a ton of playoff apps and playoff wins is better than that era where we only saw 2 playoff apps and 2 playoff wins. " Somewhere I seem to remember that the 68 NYJs upset the big bad Colts & became WORLD CHANPIONs which to date NO OTHER NYJ team has accomplished. Is that not correct? :jets:
