No, you were saying that the Jets had a creampuff run. I'm only pointing out how flawed that statement is considering they went 5-1 vs teams w/ a 46-10 combined record. If the only reason they made it to and won the Super Bowl was luck then they wouldn't have gone 5-1 against those teams. The KC game and traveling to NY has nothing to do with the Jets winning the AFLCG game considering the Raiders had a lead w/ 8 minutes left. An era is defined by Championships NOT playoff appearances. That late 60's era brought home a championship. These last 4 eras have not.
How often does a team of today beat the top contenders to win a championship? Most often, its a case of survivors playing off for the VLT. So, while I see the point that the Jets got a home game despite having a worse record, that's the way it was done, from the beginning of professional football up through the mid-70s. But, in those days, you generally played the best competition and you beat the best to win. That's what the '68 Jets did, as much as any other team in history. n
I guess having a winning FB team that actually wins nothing is better then a team that wins a Championship then you have wonder about that NYJ fan goals & aim for the team since he dismisses SB wins as being totally trival:jets:
I do not understand what exactly is your issue with that. It was a 10-team league in 1968 and only four teams had winning records. The Jets were one of those teams. They beat the other three teams with winning records (the Chiefs and Chargers in the regular season and the Raiders in the postseason). You are making it appear as if it was the Jets fault that they did not beat more teams with winning records. Also, they beat the Colts in the Super Bowl and that team had a winning record.
Yes I will gladly agree with U that maybe some of the wiser members here may become upset if we we do not secure the VLT at the end of this season but for the real youngies/homers I actually doubt it if you can believe that :jets:
It was a creampuff run- div w/ not a single winning team- no comeptition essentially getting a bye needing one win( a home game against a team playing the week before) to get to SB It was as easy a road as there could possibly be. So we beat the raiders ina clsoe game and you don't think playing the week before or the travel could have affected the outcome? We didn't win championships, we won A SINGLE championship so it was not a championship era it was a championship season. I get that they alternated back then but we got the bonus of essentially getting a bye. They beat a damn good team in the playoffs but they still had an easy road. My issue is they had an easy run, only one of those winning teams was in their div and that was the Jets. The division stunk, it gave them a HUGE advantage, then they got the advantage of oak-KC tying and having to play again. Why are we not allowed to admit we had an easy road?
5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. Going thru the Raiders & Colts in back to back weeks is “as easy a road as there could possibly be”? Ah, okay They had a lead w/ 8 minutes left and were marching down the field. Doesn’t seem to have affected them. The late 60’s Jets was an era of Jets football. And in that era they won a championship. How many championships have been won in the last 4 eras of Jets football? The fact that the Raiders had to travel to NY and that they had to play KC the week before did not affect them in the AFLCG. They had a lead w/ 8 minutes left.
awesome but that 5-1 does not speak to how easy the road was, you can keep posting that stat and fooling others who don't know but the facts are we had a creampuff ride to get to the SB. The Colts have nothing to do w/ it, I have said over and over and over again the ride TO the SB. That does not include the SB itself. Oak was a very good team BUT we got them on essentally a bye and them having to come here despite a better record and beating us. It couldn't have set up better for the 1968 Jets. The 60s era sucked besides 2 years. Of course playing KC and traveling in no way affected the Raiders, how could it? :rofl: It's just such a silly argument to day b/c they were leading that playing the week before and traveling didn't affect them.
did we get a bye and need one win to reach the SB where they gave us a home game based on rotation while the other teams had to play the week befroe?
It was a 10-team league as opposed to a 32-team league. The Jets played San Diego twice and they played at Kansas City and at Oakland. They did not get to play Kansas City and Oakland at home in the regular season. Was it the toughest schedule in the league? No. The Jets played four games against plus .500 teams. The Chargers played six such games. The Chiefs and Raiders each played five. There was no major difference in the schedules at that time, not enough anyway to make a big deal over it. The NFL and AFL had stupid rotational systems in place for the postseason back then. Green Bay had to play at Dallas in 1966, undefeated Miami had to play at Pittsburgh in 1972, etc.
5-1 vs. the top teams. No matter how you slice it they earned everything they got. Okay the ride TO the Super Bowl. We were 4-1 against teams that were a combined 33-9. The 60’s era gave us a Championship. What has the last 4 era’s given us? Championships trump playoffs.
Oak and KC had to play each other twice, that alone made their scheds more difficult. I undrestand about the rotation but we were also fortunate Oak and KC tied and had to play again giving us a bye we didn't earn. But SD was worse than their record so we take them out, right? 1-1 against Oak and KC in the reg season. The 60s gave us a championship season, the '00s have given us multiple years where we had a chance to get to a SB.
did GB beat Dallas during the year? did Dallas get a bye? did Miami beat Pitt during the year? did Pitt get a bye?
The road/better teams. Yeah, Oak and KC had tougher schedules, but not significantly so. The teams all played one another. There were 10 teams, not 32. It is not like it is now where the Pates play the Colts every year and the Jets rarely play the Colts. In the AFL in 1968, the schedules were not vastly different. That's all I am trying to convey. The bye talk you are making is difficult. What if the Jets lost a couple more games and the Oilers won two more? They would both have been 9-5 and would have had to play a playoff game vs one another. Seems to me you would give the Jets credit for having won such a game. Joe Willie White Shoes actually made the comment earlier that the Jets did in fact earn the bye because they beat the Oilers twice and handled the other games better than the Oilers did. Now this will just go in circles and I have to pick up my son at the in-law's and I'm not going to be online again for a little while and there might be 40 more posts before I come here again and everyone have a good weekend if I'm not around.
The problem is the Jets had an easy division, if they had Oak or KC in their division they may not even win it. They were fortunate to have no quality teams in their division. So they earned it beating a .500 team but 12-2 Oak didn't earn it by taking 2 of 3 against NYJ & KC?
How was SD worse than their record? I've asked you this twice now. The 68 Jets were 5-1 vs teams w/ a combined record of 46-10. Teams who only succeed because their path was "creampuff" don't go 5-1 against teams with that kind of record. Have we won a SB in the 00's? No. This era comes up short in comparison. Championships trump non-Championships.
Look this is the ACTUAL historical facts 1960 to 1969 Won both the AFL Championship & SB 3 1970 to 1979 Won NOTHING 1980 to 1989 Won NOTHING 1990 to 1999 Won NOTHING 2000 to 2009 Won NOTHING 2010 Won NOTHING Since the ONLY era we won anything was the 60s that makes the 60s era the greatest era in NYJ history. Until the NYJs win another SB no matter how many eras pass until that occurs & when that occurs that will only tie the 60s era as the best era in NYJ history until they were to win 2 SBs in the same era. When that happens those teams then will become the greatest era in NYJ history :smile:
