It was NOT a bye. Way back before Junc was even probably born the AFL had a rule that if teams had the same record when the season ended they had to play a TIE BREAKER game which is what Junc is referring to as a bye because in the Western Div that year KC & Oak had the the same record at seasons end so they had to play that T/breaking game. The NYJs won there div outright so they did not have to play a xtra game. Junc is inferring that they had a BYE but in the real world & not Juncs world I hate the NYJs World Champions he saying the NYJs had a bye which is totally incorrect :jets:
It wasn't a bye but it was a bye. It wasn't scheduled, we didn't earn it. We got lucky the 2 teams w/ the best record in the AFL tied in their division and it made our road much easier.
I have to question if U R really a NYJ fan or just a troll looking to upset the NYJ fans cause IMHO your logic is totally screwed it when it comes to the events leading up to & winning the 68 championship game & SB 3 :jets:
I am an honest fan and I give my honest opinions, if that hurts certain Jet fans there's nothing I can do about that.
We were 5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. The facts are the Oilers had a good defense and a good running game. They were better than their record indicated. Would it have been better if Beathard didn’t have to have an emergency appendectomy 3 days before 2nd Dolphins game and they won? Would the 8-6 record prove they were an above average team; which is what I’ve been saying? Basing your analysis on record alone doesn’t prove your opinion to be a fact. The Raiders had a lead w/ 8 minutes to go in the AFLCG and were marching down for the winning score before the mis-played lateral. It didn’t seem to bother them at all that they had to travel to New York or that they played the week before. They had chartered planes in January of 1969.
I don't agree with your main point, but you've been making a worthy argument with some specific points more than others. It's hilarious to me to see someone so aggressively pissing on one of pro sports greatest accomplishments - the very reason many of us are fans of this team. And, to do it in this forum, well that's kind of weird.
you are skewing #s b/c you are showing the postseason teams, They faced 3 above .500 teams all season and went 3-1 w/ 2 of the wins over SD who, by your logic, were not as good as their record. So you think the comforts of air travel in 1969 are similar to today? I have to be honest, on some level it bothers me that I have to honestly discuss '68 and Joe Namath but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what Joe and that team did. I do but I have to speak honestly about them. Yep, we have won more consistently than at any other time in our history. Nothing touches '68 but we've had more chances to get to SBs in this era than any before.
Then all I can say your reading skills need a huge improvement since you never saw either game or were even alive at the time those games were played :jets: Also we are still awaiting your input as to how this era devolid of Championships is better then 60s era :smile:
But the 60s is a era right? So U explain to me what makes the 2000 till now era is better then the 60s era was :jets: BTW were U alive during the 60s era? :smile:
Cliffnotes: Somebody's gonna say at least we're making the playoffs and giving ourselves a shot and Champ is gonna say that it's irrelevant because we didn't win the title.
U are exactly correct & that is ONLY REASON the regular season & the POs are played & is the ultimate goal of playing the season in the 1st place. If U need any proof of that just listen to WFAN & listen to all those NYYs fans who are calling in moaning & groaning that the NYYs failed :jets:
Once again, I have to ask, was the Jets road in'68 any easier than any other team of that era? Because your argument evaluates the '60s in terms of this era and there is just too much difference to make an apples to apples comparison Playing the Raiders and the Colts was not easy by any stretch of the imagination. If you were alive in'68 and witnessed games, you would know that the Colts and Raiders were the two dominant teams in football in 1968, and the Jets knocked them off, back-to-back. And, the Jets played the hand that was dealt to them, as it could only have been dealt to them in '68. They got no special treatment or breaks. I do not recall any one at the time remarking about the "easy road" the Jets had to the Super Bowl. You are making the mistake of evaluating football '68 style and football 2011. You can't. For reasons which many have explained in many posts herein, pro football is an entirely different game in 2011 than in 1968. The Jets had a very hard road to the '68 championship, when viewed in '68 terms. We don't know what would've happened it they had to play more games. One could assume they would've won, since they were clearly one of the three best teams in football that year, so since they played and beat the Raiders and Colts, one could assume they would have beaten any other, inferior team.
I agree. And for anyone who doesn't, and was not persuaded by the controversy that surrounded a three game losing streak, wait until you see what happens if the Jets don't win the SB this season
Why can't I show postseason teams? Those games don't count? Did we not beat those teams? And why were the Chargers not as good as their record? How many SB's do we have in this "era" where we have had 4 HC's and 4 QB's?
Oh I know the answer to that. Zero is that right? In fact digging out my NYJ history books I find that except for the 68 NYJs NO OTHER NYJ team has won a SB, Is my research correct? :jets:
Your research is correct but somehow the era that included the team who won a SB championship is inferior to the one who hasn't.
I haven't compared the, someone brough up the packers of the year before and it was much easier than their road. -easy division -played only 3 teams all year above .500 -essentially got a bye they didn't earn -played at home against a team that beat them and had a better record. I'm not evaluating based on 2011, I realize they did things differently but it was still an easy road. we were discussing road to the SB, the record of the Colts means nothing b/c that has nothing to do w/ it and while oak's record was great we got the advantage of playing them after faicng KC a week earlier and playing them at home despite having a worse record and having lost to them in the reg season. No SBs so no individual season is better than '68 but this era we have had numerous chances which we didn't in the 60s.
Head scratching to me but hey you can just put whomever is saying that in your Internet Knucklehead File or as in my house we call it the garbage file but shucks everybody is entitled to there HO correct? :jets:
