and if we lost to them they would have been a 10-6 Division Champ. WE are why they didn't make it in 2002. That game was HUGE. Don't downplay it b/c they didn't make the playoffs. That 2002 team was BETTER than the current Patriots.
Last time I looked the current Pats are 9 & 3 with a 2 game lead? 2006 Pats Offensive rank 9 Defensive rank 9 2002 Jets offensive Rank 23 Defensive rank 24.
In 2002 the last place team int he divison was 8-8. There were 3 winning teams and 1 .500 team. The division was much better, you can't just use records. We were better in 2002 than 2001 even though we won 1 more game in 2001. The '02 Pats were much more talented than this group.
The 02 Pats run defense was absolutely terrible and that's why they didn't make the playoffs. Their offense also struggled to move the ball as they were 28th in passing YPA and 27th in rushing YPA.
Their O was 10th in points scored so they weren't that bad and w/ as bad as the D played if they beat us at home in Week 16 then NE wins the division so to take anything away from the jets for beating the Pats on the road in that big of game is just silly. If the Coach was parcells or mangini it would be considered an epic win, this is another shot at the staff we had.
Your argument basically is 2002 was an analomy from the entire decade. Teams that won 9 games in 02 were superior to 11 win teams from every other year in the decade including 01 and 03 and now you include 06 so I assume you include 04 and 05 as well? It's an interesting theory Junc, it's not supportable but it does clarify how how you came to that conclussion that the 9 & 7 Jets of 02 are better than the 9 & 3 Patroits of 06.
How is it a shot at the staff? I was responding to your statement that the 02 Pats were a better team then the current Pats, which is pretty silly as far as I'm concerned.
it's quite simple, qwe had 4 tams at or above .500 in the division meaning no easy games so 9 wins then is as impresive as 10 or 1 in another year where there were a few gimme's.
