That's not what I am saying. I am saying they had a creampuff road, oak was a good team and not an easy team to face BUT Oak faced a tough KC team the week before while we sat him and Oak had a better record than us and beat us yet still had to go on the road to face us a week after facing KC, combine that w/ our weak division and our road to the SB was an easy one.
It's not black and white. The 67 Raiders were the most dominant team in AFL History. The Oilers had the No. 1 defense and No. 1 rushing offense in the league. They beat the Chiefs and Chargers and tied the Jets and played a tough game against the Raiders in the regular season. The 68 Oilers played the dominant teams in the AFL and were definitely not on that level. Your comment regarding the 69 Oilers/Raiders is absurd. It really doesn't matter any way as the Jets were the dominant team in the AFL East and went 5-1 against teams w/ a comibined record of 46-10. The Raiders had a late lead in the AFLCG, so having the home game or a bye as the reason the Jets won is a weak argument.
the most dominant team the AFL ever saw got crushed in the SB yet a year later against an NFL team considered better than that SB II Packer team an AFL team won. Houston had one winning season in 11 years, they were .500 2 of those 3 years you mentioned and were humiliated in both playoff games. We had an easy division w/ no pressure from another team We got lucky Oak and KC tied so they had to play a week before we played We got lucky to host the game despite losing to oak and having a worse record than them How much easier could the road have been?
How does this change anything? if that game is in oak we likely lose, if oak doesn't ahve to play a tough KC team the week before we likely lose.
H'mmm sorry to say what your always leave unanswered is how many World Championships have the NYJs won since 01/13/69? :jets:
You do realize not every game and every matchup is the same. Just because the 1968 Colts may have been perceived to be better than the 1967 Packers didn't guarantee they would win. The 67 Packers had a championship pedigree. The Colts hadn't won a championship since 1959 and had only a few players left from that 59 team. It's possible the 67 Raiders would have beaten the 68 Colts. What does 11 years have to do with 67-68? The Jets were 5-1 against teams with a combined 46-10 record in 1968. The Jets were the dominant team in the AFL East. The Oilers were an above average team but were not at the same level as the Jets. The Raiders had a late lead in the AFLCG. Clearly they weren't affected by playing the game at Shea or having to play the Chiefs.
Based on what? They had the lead late in the game against us and were marching down for the GW score before losing the ball on a lateral. They weren't affected by either playing at Shea or playing the Chiefs the week before.
I was hoping that the new Houston team were going to be named the Oilers but Bud Adams wouldn't allow it.
Yet we allowed him to use "Titans" (I guess because the Jets didn't give a crap about the name - unless when throwback uniform sales are concerned) Interesting. I hadn't thought about the fact that Bud Adams, and original AFL owner took another original AFL team name for his team after it relocated. I suppose "Tennessee Texans" wouldn't have worked too well. Hey, and then the Houston team that wasn't allowed to be called "Oilers" instead took the only remaining defunct AFL name not being used - Texans! Which made sense in this case. Just never really thought about all that before. Long live the AFL.
Do U mean that Calif air is different then NY air & the backward lateral in NY would have been a forward pass in Oak :jets:
That's not what I meant. After the Colts and Rams left Baltimore and Cleveland high and dry I think the NFL decided not to let owners take the team name with them - Browns were the first. Adams fled Houston, could not use the name Oilers outside of Houston (not appropriate in Tennessee anyhow) but would not allow Houston to use it either. Since Adams couldn't use Oilers, he took another unused AFL name. Then Houston did the same.
Huh the Rams are still the Rams. In the Browns case I do not think the NFL would allow it nor when Modell then the owner opt to carry the name with him as the Rams & Cards both did. I think that Adams just decided to start anew totally so he became a Titan rather the Oiler as oil & Texas sought of go together like apple pie & ice cream
11 years tells us more than '67 tells us about '68 or '69. It proves they were a medicore franchise for many years w/ one lone winning season then getting humiliated. The '85 Bears didn't beat a playoff opponent as bad as Houston was beaten by Oakland so I don't care how good oak was. They exposed Houston for being a mediocre team whihc Houston proved the next 2 years by going .500 each season. So you don't think playing an extra game hurt them at all? why do teams play to get byes then? It doesn't guarantee a win but it certainly helps increase the odds and we barely beat them w/ a week off at Shea, you think if we didn't get that week off and played them in oak we beat them? It's possible but our odds go way down. Everything played out perfectly for us that season in getting to the SB. In my lifetime we had so many horrible losses to the Oilers I don't really miss them too much:grin: I like the Texans better so far.
Can't comment on teams in 60's...wasn't alive. In my lifetime of being a fan (starting in 1985) the past 2 years have been the most exciting football seasons EVER. Only other time I felt like this was in 1998. So, I'm riding Rex and Dirty till the end
Whenever I get upset at this year's team I think of Kliff Kingsbury passing to Dante Ridgeway and everything immediately seems much better.
