Re-read what I said...I said they count in the standings and that the games do count but when your evaluating the talent of the team you have to look at the circumstances of the wins and losses individually. there were two games that were just handed to the jets due to just inexcusable gaffs by the other team. Record wise the Jets were an 8-8 team, but based on play and talent they were a 6-10 team.
the other game was the inexcusable decision by the other teams head coach at the end of the first half to try for a TD instead of taking the field goal when the game was a one score game and the final score was 2 point jets victory. NFL football 101, never ever leave points on the board in the first half if the score is within 7 to 10 points.
That assessment makes no sense. There are many deficiencies, but boiling it down to an imaginary win:loss ratio is a strange way to quantify them.
No worse than imagining the team is better than it actually was based on it's record. I've seen horrible teams make it to the playoffs and even make it to the superbowl...doesn't make them a good team, just means they got the right breaks at the right times. A good team wins on it's own merits, nothing imaginary about that.
And to reinforce that, the expected record based on the Pythagorean expected wins/losses based on points scored and points allowed over the season had the jets at 5.4 wins for the season. The same model had the Patriots at 10.5 wins, the dolphins at 7.5 wins, Eagles at 9.4 wins, etc. Generally speaking the Pythagorean model is generally within a game of the actual record for the season. The fact is the Jets points scored to points allowed was a -97, worst in the division and 7th worst in the league. None of the teams with a worse point differential were better than 4-12 for the season. Of the 5 teams that were within 10 points +/- of the Jets point differential they were a combined 24 wins and 56 losses, with only 1 team having more than 5 wins and that was the Giants with 7. Translation, yes Dorothy, the Jets talent wise really were at best a 6-10 team.
Yet, with their talent they won 8 games...so at best they were an 8 win team? As you know, lucky wins/losses even out, which was the case this season.
Not really no, NFL season is only 16 games so one fortunate win or one unfortunate loss does not necessarily equal out over the course of a season. Numbers don't lie, the jets record was 8-8 but every statistical reference point from over 40 years of stats indicate it to be nothing but a statistical outlier, they happen. But when no team within 10 or even 20 points of the points allowed differential had even a .500 record then you have to admit it's an anomaly. the Jets offense scored the 3rd fewest points in the league. The Jets defense allowed the 12th most points in the league. neither the points scored nor the points allowed were in the top 50% of the league....99 times out of 100 that amounts to a losing record. Yes the Jets were an 8-8 team, but talent wise and play wise they weren't that good. You can delude yourself in to believing the team was that good, in which case your drinking koolaide. it took a lot to go just right for the Jets to reach 8-8, they defied the odds, but if they put up the same stats next year they will be 4-12 or 5-11.
1) As a Patriot fan, I am not drinking any Jets koolaide 2) If they allowed the 12th most points in the league, they were in the top 50% of the league. Either you have the stats wrong, or you are wrong 3) I highly doubt that 99 out of 100. If one team loses by a significant amount in 1 game (40 pts to Cincinatti) that hardly affects the rest of the games while deluding your point differential statistic.
I cannot agree with that decision being the reason the Jets won a game. There was an entire half to be played.
And take away Geno's 3 INT's, take away Payton mismanaging the clock and the Pats are a 10 win team. You can literally find plays here and there that had it went differently their record would be different.
Exactly. He does have a point, though, about point differential. The Jets really did resemble a 4-12, 5-11 type of team. They shouldn't delude themselves. There is tremendous room for growth.
Eh wrong...You need to lay off the New England Ale son. #2 they allowed the 12th MOST points in the league, not the 12th least. If they had allowed the 12th least number of points then yes they would have been in the top half of the league, however they allowed the 12th MOST points and therefore were in the bottom half of the league...you know, allowing points is BAD, not GOOD. #3 yes, but for every blowout loss it usually compensates over the course of a season. Again, if you allow the 12th most points and score near the fewest points you ARE 99% of the time going to have a losing record. Hell, if you score in the bottom 5 of points scored 99% of the time your going to have a losing record UNLESS your defense allows the least number of points. Numbers don't lie. When you have a point differential that far out of whack 99% of the time it's a losing season. Case in point, the Jets in 2012 also had a nearly identical -94 points scored to allowed record, they were 6-10. the other teams in the league in 2012 than allowed -80 or worse None were better than 6-10....NONE and all but 2 were no better than 4-12. 2011 no team that were -80 or worse was .500, however the chiefs came close at 7-9. 2010 1 team that was -80 or worse finished 7-9, all other teams were at best 4-12. 2009 again same story, no team -80 or worse finished .500 all but 1 was under 5-11, the one was 7-9. 2008. the best record by any team with -80 or worse finished better than 5-11 That's 6 seasons, where only the Jets at worse than -80 managed to finish .500. I can keep going backwards and I might find one or two other teams that finished .500 despite a -80 or worse point deficeit, but you get the picture. Numbers don't lie. The Jets this season were an anomaly at 8-8. That's their official record, but again it was a very fortunate record.
I agree that there is a lot of room for growth but I hate the logic he used. To me point differential means that we won close games but lost by a bunch. And even then it still doesn't discredit what they were able to do this year. Oh yeah take away the refs bs in the Browns game and the Pats win 9 games.
Even with that the -98point differential reinforces that point of view. in the past 7 or 8 seasons only one other team that's had a -80 or worse differential has had a .500 record. and all but a small handful were 4-12 or worse. When you look at all the data, all the game play, all the circumstances the Jets were a very fortunate 8-8.
You can hate that argument, and you can rose tint the -98 points, but history has shown definitely that -80 or worse and almost no team finishes better than 7-9 and 90% of the teams finish under 5-11.
They also only recovered 2 of 18 opponent fumbles. What's their record if that is closer to the statistical norm of 50%?
Though don't get me wrong, I do think they should be careful not to overestimate the talent they have and mistake this for a retooling scenario. There are definitely a lot of improvements to be made. I just don't think the Bucs and Pats games are the indicators of that.
This is the whole point of the argument. It's dangerous to think this years team was really an 8-8 team, it leads to the belief that the team is just one or two pieces short of becoming a true year in and year out divisional contender. I've seen the jets fall in to this trap many time over the 45 years or so that I've been a jets fan. They have one year where their record is better than what all the numbers indicate, they get passive in improving the team, they fall to 4-12, 5-11 or whatever. I want the Jets to be a team that is always there and is set up for the long haul. Subscribing to the belief that a team that a team that in reality overachieved based on it's talent is really a team that is close to being very good. That's not to say there aren't parts of the Jets that are very good, or have the potential to be very good. But the reality is the Jets receivers are poor. Hill is treated by other teams as the Jets #1 game threat when in reality he's a #2 receiver talent wise, but he get's treated by being covered by the other teams #1 Corner and double teams because there is no one else they ever feel remotely threatened by. Sad part is he's really at his best as a #2 receiver against the other teams #2 or nickleback. the secondary is a train wreck, the running game is passible, but not great, the o-line may with another year or two become more solid, but Mangold and Brickshaw are aging and will need to be replaced in the next few years most likely. I like the young guys, but they're still question marks on the line. Smith is a big question mark at this time. Sanchez isn't the answer, that boat has sailed. The Jets need to be aggressive this offseason, and I believe the fans need to be proactive and let the FO know that they need to be proactive and not give off a vibe of "oh we're close"...been there, done that too many years. I've seen the Jets in the Superbowl once in my life, I'd like to see them there one more time before I leave this mortal coil.
