In Jets beat KC AT KC in '68, beat SD twice, beat Houston twice and lost to Oakland at Oakland in a fluke at the end (Heidi game btw). What didn't they earn? To say the Raiders earned it more is splitting hairs, and the point wasn't even made in 1968. If your argument is that the game should have been played at Oakland, well that argument could be made for every championship since 1933 to 1974. Why single out the Jets? If your argument is that if the game was played at Oakland or if the Raiders didn't have to play the Chiefs in a play-off, then the Raiders would've won, well, save that argument for Mike Francessa. No one knows. If your argument is that the Jets had an "Easy Road" to the '68 Super Bowl, a point which NO ONE AGREES WITH, even if they did, who cares! Until the current or future Jets win a Super Bowl, no team will ever match up to the '68 Jets, and there's no one, not even a casual fan, who would argue with that. Your original argument seemed to be that SBIII was a tainted win and the current Jets are better. Its pointlessness to argue the relative value of Jet teams, and head-scratching for a Jets fan to put down our greatest accomplishment, and one of the greatest accomplishments in football history
No matter if it was a easy or hard schedule no matter if KC or Oak was in there division or not the only thing that matters is they won a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP which to date NO OTHER NYJ team have done :jets:
I am not a fan of comparing modern day football with true football of the past. If defenses were allowed to play real football, today's premadonna QB's would be asking for a stretcher vs. asking for a flag. JMHO.
I am using your flawed logic. SD beat ONE team w/ a winning record, they fattened up on a eak sched so that must mean they are worse than their record, right? 1-1 against the top teams in the AFL in the reg season then got the bye they didn't earn and hosted a better team in the one game playoff to get to the SB. You can dress up those #s all you want but the facts are they had ane asy road. Very interesting, we "earned" the bye winning a bad division but oak beating us and winning more games in a tougher division did not. where does this logic come from? Great win at KC week 1. beat .500 oilers, no big deal beat SD who beat only one winning team all year- no big deal. They were 1-1 against the top teams in the AFL in the reg season. They rotated the title games so that'a fair even though we didn't earn homefield, the problem is they got a bye they didn't earn too when 2 teams w/ BETTER records had to play a one game playoff while we sat home and got to play one game against the winner to get to the SB. I don't care if anyone agrees, it's a fact we had a creampuff road. people are just afraid to knock the best team in our history in any way just like most are afraid to knock Namath- I'm not afraid. SB III is not a tainted win, it's arguably the most important game in the history of the sport BUT we caught huge breaks to get to that point, why can't we all just admit this? If an average defensive player his Joe Namath under today's rules Joe's career would have ended much earlier. The rules favor the QBs today but if they didn't we'd see players dying on the field b/c the athletes are so much bigger, stronger, faster.
Junc, not for nothing, but can't you say this about every superbowl winner? Somehow they got breaks somewhere? I firmly believe a big part of winning it all is luck, you have to get the ball to bounce your way when you need it most. Whether it be they just squeaked into the postseason like GB last year or Baltimore in 2000? The pats with us knocking Bledsoe out when we did, followed by tuck rule in 01. Giants beat the greatest team ever thanks to them playing the best DL game of their life, coupled with the Pats worst OL performance in forever. Luck in terms of injuries, I mean hell how many SB winners could say they still would have won it all if their QB went down during the regular season? Tons of teams seeding was benifitted by playing weak teams in the regular season. What about the opposing QB throwing an INT in the postseason, throwing a ball that should never have been thrown, the unforgivable mistake (See GB in favre's final year there) where the benificiary goes on to win it all? Every great team catches breaks, be it in the scheduling, or on the field, the refs, or in some other way, its the great teams take advantage of those mistakes and they find a way to get it done in the end. I just don't see your argument as having a point. Unless you are trying to say the 68 Jets arent the greatest team in NFL history. In which case, I don't think a single person could possibly disagree with that statement.
In most years teams catch a break here or there but the # we caught was pretty high. I have outlined them numerous times in this thread, it was an extraordinary amount of breaks in our favor.
Junc is just jealous because he never saw the NYJs win a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP so he has decided to bring the 68 team down to the level of every other NYJ team that has won NOTHING so in his head he can say every NYJ was a loser & the 68 NYJs won due to some sort of fluke :smile:
It does matter how many breaks the 68 team may have gotten in the end they WON THE WORLD ChAMPIONSHIP which NO OTHER NYJ team has done in there 50 year existence to date :jets:
How can U make such a statement when the 98 NYJs won NOTHING whereas the 68 NYJs won the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP which has to automatacially make the 68 NYJs the best team ever so far :jets:
did the '98 Jets get a bye while Den played the week before? then did they play denver at home despite Den having a better record?
If the 1968 Jets and Oilers both finished 9-5 (which would have been the case if not for the Jets beating the Oilers twice) and everything else happened exactly as it did, then nyjunc would be more impressed with the 1968 Jets. It is foolish to assume anything about the Jets playoff "bye". Rest can sometimes hurt teams. How many times have we seen a team lay an egg after having a first round bye?
Player for player, the '98 team was better, but I agree with you, all that matters is winning a championship.
I would have been more impressed w/ the division but b/c Hou could only beat bad teams they were a mediocre team and thus beating them out was not overly impressive- certainly not as impressive as winning the West. Teams fight every year to get a bye, to rest while others are beating each other up. Are there instances of teams w/o byes winning? sure but it's more a recent thing and the odds of winning are way down having to play 2 games to get to the SB rather than one.
the fact he seems to be unaware of, is that back then not only were the offenses much more verticle, but the defense was nowhere as handicapped by the rules as today's defenses are. you can't kill the qb now, nor can you harass the wr all over the field. and, most importanat of all, the qb had to call his own plays, except in cinn where paul brown ran his shuttle guard system. get rid of the sideline play-calling and then let's compare today's teams to the ones back in the 60's. bottom line, the sb3 team is the best one, since it's the ONLY one with a trophy. RESULTS COUNT!:up:
I wonder how the St. Louis baseball Cardinals feel about your "extraordinary amount of breaks in their favor" argument right about now? BTW...how the fuck does this thread still have steam? hahahah...well done.
We are not talking of the 98 NYJs who by the way were LOSERs also I think we are talking of the 68 NYJs who were WORLD CHAMPIONs :jets:
Who cares the FACTs are the NYJs were WORLD CHAMPIONs where as EVERY other NYJ team were losers from 1960 till now except for the 68 team :jets:
