Success is a comparative enterprise in sports. It all depends on where you are in your progression. If the Chargers don't win the Super Bowl thats a disappointment. Thats because they are at that level. If the Jets don't get to the Super Bowl we've still had a successful season because of where we are in our development curve. And no team is going to win every year. I'd rather be a perennial contender like the Eagles or the Broncos than a loser like the Lions anytime.
At least the thread started some conversation. The point was simple...this is not some franchise lost in the wilderness, but since '97, nearly a decade, an upper echelon team. One reply discussed skewing the numbers by not going back to beyond 2001. In 2000, they were 9-7, good enough for the playoffs this year. In '99 they lost Vinny in game 1, still ended up 8-8. We know 12-4 in '98, add in a 9-7 in '97. So in the period I missed, we were 38-26. Take this year, and think about how ridiculous the so-called experts were. Here is a team that has been to the playoffs 3 of the last 4 years. Year prior, they lost their #1 AND #2 QB in GAME 3!!! The franchise was smart enough to bring in a starting caliber QB to backup Pennington due to his history, and he goes out 1 quarter after him!! Not one team in the NFL lost both #1 and #2 QB withina month, let alone a quarter this year. But all the talent that had made them a pick for the superbowl was now no longer there? I am a Yankee fan, and I live the other end of this for them...they could suck for a decade (see 1964 - 1975), yet they were always the Yankees, a winning franchise. My point is simple...the Jets, looked at objectively, are really a best in class organization. A superbowl appearance might make a few more people open their eyes.
While the ultimate goal is to win a SB the reality is it's a process. The reason the Jets are looked at as a bottom feeding organization going back to the early 70's is we have had a revolving door of new GM's and coaches starting the process over and over again with failed results. Even though recently we have been somewhat successful compared to all the other also ran’s, Parcells started a rebuild to a SB and quit, Bellichek quit and than built a 3 time winner and Herm took the remnants of those teams and made the playoffs before failing and bailing. There is a reason this 10 & 6 team has a sense of optimism beyond the obvious talent and station of the team as a wild card. We all feel the process to a SB has restarted and is in good hands regardless of how this particular run turns out.
Yes, I do think it's all or nothing. What else do you want? Second place is the first loser. Without a championship, while a season can be great(like this one), it is a failure. I will never look back in ten years and say "we had a great year but lost in the first round". Never, it's going to be if we win or not.
As long as topics like this are taken seriously by Jets fans we are NOT an elite team. Fans of teams that are elite don't sit around debating their status in the league. They sit around discussing division titles...home field advantages and first round byes.
what about degrees and definitions of failure? 1-15 total failure 12-4 loss in conference championship? failed at a crucial time, but overall sucessful season? Just like a 9-7 season is technically a wining season, it is differnet from a "super bowl winning season". Different degrees and definitions of success.
I do believe that the top tier teams are the teams that win it, sorry. I think winning it and nothing else matters. Sure teams can have great years and so on, but unless they win it, nobody will ever care(in the long term).
Completely disagree...Buffalo never won it, but are you honestly going to tell me they weren't an elite team when they went to 4 straight SBs?
but whether people care and whether a team is one of the top teams in the league for a certain period of time are two different things entirely. you are entitled to your opinion, just know that yours is not grounded in any type of logic whatsoever.
No they weren't. No ring, no glory. In 20 years nobody will ever remember them at all, but they will Scott Norwood.
no, that is one of the goals -- the main goal. but teams do have, and need to have, numerous goals for their team to honestly and accurately assess how good the team is. your flat position would say that all teams that don't win the Super Bowl are even, when that isn't the case. a 12-4 Super Bowl loser is not the same as a 1-15 team simply because they did not win the Super Bowl. by your position, each of those teams would look at themselves the same and think they need to make the same improvements because they both failed to achieve the same goal. not so. do you seriously believe the Detroit Lions are going to go into the offseason believing they have a legitimate shot at winning the Super Bowl next year and simply try to put all the pieces together this off season to complete the mission? absolutely not, that would be completely irresponsible. yes, the ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl, but when your team is 3-13, your goal the next year is to simply improve and set in motion the process to win a Super Bowl as soon as possible. yes, you will take it if it happens the next year, but you aren't mortgaging the future for it immediately. you have to know where you are in order to know what you need to do and how long it will take you. undertsnding that you are one or two seasons away from actually being a Super Bowl contender is neccessary because it helps you assemble the team that can win. the Lions goal next season isn't to simply win the Super Bowl or the season is a failure, it is to get better and be a Super Bowl contender as soon as possible. the logic of your position ignores the fact that it takes seasons to assemble a team and develop the chemistry it takes to win a Super Bowl - that it isn't just an instantaneous things. sure, there have been surprises, the 99 Rams, 01, Patriots, but those are exceptions, not the rule, and those teams had several seasons of continued success that actually reinforces this position.
again, what people remember is independent of what actually occurs. the Bills performance exists independent of whether you remember it, so judging their performance on an irrelvent aspect is illogical.
It's coming up on twenty and I remember them. That team was awesome. Do you even remember having to play them twice a year and how they OWNED us? If you don't think that was an elite team then you shouldn't be commenting on football...in my opinion
what personal goals, the 90's Bills goal was to win a Super Bowl, they failed on that. but their domination of the AFC and performance in the NFL over an extended period of time made them one of the top 3 teams in the league for about 5 seaons. that type of success makes you an elite team during that period, which again is independent of their goals.
They were so good they lost FOUR SB's in a row. I remember. They were the BEST of the worst. Not ELITE, lucky to be in a shit league. And if your impressed with the way that the Bills destroyed our terrible Jets teams during the years, then maybe YOU shouldn't comment on football.
It's obvious that you're unfamiliar with football and what makes a team great. If you say something like the Bills were "the best of the worst," what's the point in me having a serious discussion with you? Plus...aren't you the one who thinks this week's PLAYOFF game is a "no win situation" for the Pats? lol
