Numbers don't tell the whole story though. Looking at the Jets in wins all but 3 of their wins were 7 points or less. I don't think they are an anomaly, they were very inconsistent and one or two plays are different and the Jets are 9-7. Maybe the Jets are better than the stats indicate? You see good/great players have off years for example. Not saying the Jets were great but my point is that you can take out plays to prove your point especially when we can do the same for any team hence my Patriots example.
And all 4 losses could have been wins. Happens every year my friend. As they say, you're making my point.
Why do people keep bringing up this same tireless one sided argument that ignores the amount of suspensions/injuries? MM didn't have the entire talent together for a single game so saying based on talent they are 6-10 is flat out dishonest. They were also ONE PLAY AWAY from 9-7 and a playoff birth. It works both ways and almost every team in the NFL has games like that. How many wins were the Patriots handed this year? LOL at counting the 2 late penalties as "games handed" to them, but ignoring the other close games they could have won. Too funny. It's a straight up fallacy to suggest that those games were won by one single penalty while the other 58 minutes were irrelevant. Stop making stupid arguments that are completely hypocritical and obviously one sided and biased. You enjoy seeing the Jets fail. We get it. Preach it on a Dolphins fans site or something. I swear they need to make an official Jets Suck forum so all the haters can have fun being pessimistic about everything.
You have nothing but a self-serving assumption based solely on conjecture. In other words, you have nothing Aaron.
The Jets being the third lowest scoring team in the NFL, only the Jaguars and the Texans scored fewer points, would pretty much confirm that the Jets really weren't that talented. You can make the argument for any team that has a big point differential that "there were some blowouts" that distort the numbers. But good teams also have some blowouts that they win that counterbalance that. If you're wins are all of the hang on by your nails and your losses are by and large blowouts then your are not a very good team. This is pretty much born out because very very very few teams with big negative points scored diff (-80 or worse) even get to .500 (so far in digging back I've found exactly 3 examples of teams reaching .500) and none have had winning records and I went back I think 15 years or so before I went to bed today. When a trend is that strong and that definitive there is little doubt about the cause and effect. Any other argument I'm afraid is just wearing green glasses.
Which is why you rely on statistical data. Injuries happen to EVERY team in the NFL, it's the nature of the game. The Jets have limited talent on offense for starters and had very thin depth behind that limited talent. Good teams have depth, bad teams don't. In the salary cap era there is very little difference between most teams if they're teams stay 100% healthy, but teams don't stay healthy and it's the depth that fills in the difference. I'm not a Jets hater...sorry to disappoint your ass, but I'm also not going to drink the koolaide and believe the team was better than it actually was. I have seen horrible teams make it to the superbowl because they got a few breaks a long the way, especially in the playoffs...were they good teams? Nope. And that's not to say that the Jets Can't be a good team next year, but I have all too often over the years seen the Jets think they were better than they really were after an 8-8 season or 9-5 season and then fall to 3-13 or something the next year. It's that false belief and complacency by the fan base that comes with it, that has allowed the Jets FO over the years to be neglectful and complacent.
It's not like I'm calling them a 1-15 team, simply stating that I honestly believe talent wise the team was at best a 6-10 team, like last season, which is also where the Pythagorean expectation for last year and this year had them.
Pythagorean expectation? You can't predict a season using math as there is SO MUCH variance from week to week in the NFL. Each game is it's own beast. If you don't count the defense they might have the talent of a 6-10 team, but arguing that notion by bringing up 2 late game penalties, while ignoring the other close games we could have won is downright silly. Plus there's the fact that the coaching helped elevate the talent around them. Maybe if you ignore coaching you could say they are a 6-10 talent team, but coaching talent is still part of talent and we had to deal with a LOT of injuries on offense, more than the average team at least.
We had a 10-6 defense with a 5 win offense. So 8-8 evens it up. As for last years team there were games that if one or two plays are different we'd be 8-8 or 9-7 as well.
We would of made the playoffs with Sanchez in but I don't think we would of gotten far. Probably round one lost. Sent from my LG-LS720 using Tapatalk
Your right, its such a futile argument and I don't know why it even gets brought up. There are always "should have beens", its the NFL. They battle it out relentlessly for 60 minutes and the game winds up coming down to a hair, its amazing actually.
I'm not so sure about that now. Bengals stunk it big time today. Jets might have actually beaten them.
you are 100%correct-----it seems to me we don't need a HC----that's a major piece of the puzzle-----lets see where fa and the draft get us------all these jet haters are taking pot shots at geno-------but if they were in cincy tonite they would say the same about Dalton giant fans are doing the same with eli----and he led them to 2 sb in the last 6 years all fans like to bitch----ill let rex decide the qb
The Pats purposely don't cheat in certain games so they can make it look like nothings wrong.Pats are the biggest joke in sports history in my eyes.Cheating there way to 3 championships
You can definitely correlate NFL teams as a group in terms of their points scored and allowed vs their W-L record. This year 17 teams had a negative point differential on the season and only one of those teams finished above .500, that being the Green Bay Packers who were -11 in point differential but finished 8-7-1 on the season. 15 teams had a positive point differential on the season and only one of those teams finished below .500, that being the Detroit Lions who were +19 in point differential but finished 7-9 on the season. If you looked at most NFL seasons you would find similar results to those listed above. You might occasionally find a couple or even a few teams that beat the odds or suffered against them in a given year but the pattern is consistent over time. If you score more points than you allow the expectation is that you will win more games than you lose and vice-versa. Good teams don't give up a lot more points than they score. Some people would argue that a key injury can cause this to happen, however I would argue that after that key injury the team is no longer good so the argument is moot. Bad teams don't score a lot more than they allow. When a team like the 2009 Jets looks particularly bad in terms of their points differential vs wins (2009 Jets should have won 11 games not 9) and then suddenly goes on a long run in the playoffs it's likely no accident. The 2013 Jets were a 5 to 6 win team based on their point differential. Exceeding that expectation by 2 wins was a very unusual thing for them to do. Maybe one team a year does that. Without substantial improvement next season the Jets will likely be a 5 to 6 win team. Of course they have the draft picks and cap space to substantially improve so the odds are pretty good they're going to be better than this year's team. That improvement might take them to 8-8 or if they get a bit of luck much higher than that.
The Pythagorean expectation is only applied after the fact using a mathematical model that overall is pretty accurate when comparing a teams actual record to where the numbers say the record should be. 90% of the time or so it's within a game one way or the other due to random variance. If you don't count the defense the team was a 2 and 14 team. The 2013 Jets were the 3rd worst team at putting points on the board. The defense was in the bottom portion of the middle third in allowing points, a good part of that was on the offense. Coaching plays a role of course. But players play the game. But if you want to weigh in that much on coaching then you have to lay a huge part of the Jets offense being the 3rd worst in the NFL at scoring at the feet of MM. I'm not willing to do that, the Jets offense was simply miserable, there is no other way to phrase that, and there is no argument that can dispute that. None. Yes there were close games they COULD have won, but that's the point...they didn't...and they didn't because they couldn't execute, which is different than falling short and having the other team gaffe so badly at the end that the team stumbles to a victory through no fault of their own. And had they won those close games that the "could" have won, and won them on their own, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the Jets had a top 5 defense you could make an argument the team was a valid 8-8 team or 9-7 team...but the Jets didn't have a top 5 defense, they had a defense that allowed the 12 most points in the league, or just a little more than the average league defense. they had an team that ranked 3rd worst at putting points on the board. A middle of the road defense and a bottom barrel offense in no way equates to a legitimate 8-8 team.
