They could have at least been competitive but they were a mediocre team at best. Good may be a little strong, decent is more like it. How is that proven? How do you know it took nothing out of them and they wouldn't have rolled us if they were fresher? Nothing can be proven either way but again common sense supports my side. I never said the Oilers were terrible, I said mediocre which they were. Ask any coach and they'll take a week off while their opponent is playing the week before. It's not a guarantee but the odds of winning go way up. They are FACTS, I assume the game was early afternoon EC time so that means on the Oak players body clocks it was morning. That doesn't have an affect? They are all facts. I'm sure you have studied the 60s more than I have, that doesn't mean you get the edge here b/c clearly that is not the case for any neutral observer reading this debate. I think b/c of your love for that era you tend to overrate teams.
SD was a good team. I have listed many facts to back that up. They didn’t steamroll us when we played them in Oakland only a few weeks earlier. In fact they only won the game because we gave them the game. The fact that the Raiders had the lead deep in the game, the Jets went three and out 3 out of their first 4 drives, had more penalties and turnovers support my side. I don’t know for sure the week off affected them but there is evidence to support that theory. I am just asking you to provide some evidence to support yours. The Oilers were better than a 7-7 team. That’s what I have said all along. They had a good defense and a good running game. They had won the division the week earlier and were the team the Jets needed to beat to win the division, which they did twice. Of course coaches want the bye week, but it hasn’t proven to be a great advantage. Now you are using the Oakland players body clocks as a reason the Jets had a creampuff run? These are all excuses. The time of the game, the travel, the week before are all excuses. The Raiders had the lead late in the game. That proves that none of those excuses affected them. You don’t have the edge in this debate because you haven’t brought anything to the debate. Nothing to prove your argument and nothing I can’t get from just looking at box scores and standings sheets. You’ve made blanket, black and white statements. Maybe to most people you could get away with that, but I spend a lot of time reading books and newspaper clippings and play by play data. You can’t pull that stuff with me.
All Junc has brought to the debate is his made up SPECULATION of woulda, shoulda, coulda. This from a guy that DID NOT even exist in 68. In the ultimate end the 68 team were WORLD CHAMPIONs & since no other NYJ has ever accomplished that the 68 team stands at the top of the pile & then you can debate the ranking of every other losing team the NYJs have had in the last 50 years :smile:
The Jets got a "bye" because they took care of business in the regular season. The Chiefs and Raiders did not. Write whatever you want ("creampuff schedule", "turd-like division"), but the Jets were idle that weekend because they did not allow the Oilers to tie them for the division lead. The Chiefs and Raiders had the same opportunity to win their division outright and neither could handle it. That was not the Jets' fault. It is more factually correct to say that the Jets earned the week off than it is to say that the Jets got lucky and received a huge break and that Oakland was unfairly punished. It was not a statement of fact. It was a question. It is definitely possible that the Jets relaxed early in the season. We've seen this in the NFL before, but it is virtually impossible to prove from a couch or stadium seat. You'd actually need players from the particular team to admit to it and that usually only happens when a guy writes a book 15 years later. Look at the recent loaded Chargers teams that were slow out of the gate. Heck, they did not win any Super Bowls, yet it looks like they lollygagged early in seasons during the Philip Rivers era. We certainly see this in the other sports. Plenty of good MLB and NBA teams have coasted at times in the regular season. Both Rockets championship teams did this in my opinion. Yes, the first team too. A couple of the Lakers championship teams during the Kobe Bryant era cruised through the regular season as well. I do think it is possible that the Jets were a little slow out of the gate. They won tight games vs KC, SD, and Houston, but they did lose to the putrid Bills and the crappy Broncos. To be fair, though, the Bills loss could maybe be pinned solely on Joe Namath. He was absolutely terrible in the game and most of Buffalo's points came directly off of his interceptions. All the AFL teams played all the other AFL teams in 1968. If one team had a cupcake schedule, then they all did. You are splitting hairs when you make a big deal out of the fact that the Jets played 4 games vs winning teams and the Chiefs played 5 such games.
They were decent. Nothing more, good teams don't beat just one winning team all year. They didn't steamroll us in oakland but what does that have to do w/ the title game? There's no evidence either way but common sense supports my side. Hasn't proven to be a great advantage? Most SB champs have had a bye week. I'm not using the body clocks as an excuse, I'm posting a fact. I am assuming that was an early afternoon NY time game. Did that cost them along w/ th other factors? I don't know but I do know ti was a advantage for the Jets. I have won this debate over and over again, the facts support me and it's not close. Don't steal my lines now too, yopu can get away w/ that nonsnese w/ most but not w/me- that's my line and it applies here too. just b/c you read a book and have this false notion that Houston was better than they were doesn't mean anything. The facts support me, this was an easy debate. When Champ agrees w/ you that should tell you something. Took care of business? they won a WEAK division w/ no quality teams in the division. The Chiefs and raiders had each opther to contend w/. if we played in a div w/ KC and Oak we wouldn't have even got to a 1 game playoff. The jets didn't earn anything. IF they took games off that tells you all we need to know about their competition. You can't compare an 82 game basketball or 162 game MLB season to a 16 (14 at the time) NFL/AFL season. Oak played KC twice, KC played Oak twice, the Jets played each once so therefore Oak/KC had tougher scheds.
I like this idea. Except for the 68/69 squad, which team is the best in Jets history? Or, worded another way, what is the second best team in Jets history? Edit: Personally I would have to say the 1998 team. Most complete and balanced Jets team I can remember seeing.
Duh the thread is where do the NYJ teams rank in franchise history. So enuf said about being the best. Now if you want to debate EVERY other NYJ team other then that 68 team which has won NOTHING be my guest. :sad:
Okay, I see it now. The 1968 Jets were a mediocre team in a sad division. They did not deserve to go to the playoffs and if they had any class they would have laid down like dogs against Oakland in the AFL Championship Game so that the vastly superior team could represent the AFL in the Super Bowl.
The Jets team that started 10-1 (1986) may have been the most talented team we ever had. They almost overcame injuries only to lose to the Browns in overtime. If that team could have stayed healthy they would have given the Giants a run for their money in the Superbowl. Freeman McNeil and Johnny Hector combined for more than 2,000 yards from scrimmage and 16 TDs. Wesley Walker, Al Toon, and Mickey Shuler all had a very productive seasons with only Walker missing the pro bowl despite finishing with 1,000 yards and 12 TDs himself. Ken O'Brien had a great year before he and most of his offensive line got hurt. Bud Carson's defense led by an aging sack exchange held all but two opponents under 100 yards during the 10-1 start before losing Klecko, Lyons, and Gastineau to injury. The Chiefs and the Browns both had a hard time running the ball in the playoffs as well. The 1998 team won the division and had a great record but if you watched the 1986 team play there is a lot of football that just doesn't show up in the stats and that team was as good as any Jets team I ever saw.
In another thread, posters are debating whether they'd rather see the Jets lose the SB to Giants or go 8-8, with a lot (me included) saying they'd rather see 8-8. If Jets played the Giants in the '86 SB , I think some of our worst nightmares would come true You are correct in pointing out the underrated nature of the '86 team, but losing 5 straight to end the season has a way of causing that. I think at the season's mid-point, the Jets were better than the Giants, but by the season's end, the Giants were, sad to say, a juggernaut.
Even if we lost the team would have fared better than Elway's Broncos (if healthy). Simms would not have gone 22-25 with Gastineau, Klecko, and Lyons in his face. Win or lose, that Superbowl with the Jets in it is a game we Jets fans deserved to see.
The season that never gets mentioned is 1985. We got blown out by the Raiders on opening day and then reeled off 9 wins in the next 11 games. We went 11-5 and finished 2nd to a 12-4 Dolphin team. The biggest difference ... somehow they beat the Bears that year, and we lost to the Bears. We were in first place after 12 games but finished 2-2 while the Dolphins went 4-0. Our defense played great that year. We gave up the fewest points in the AFC and 3rd overall in the NFL behind that Bears team, and a virtual tie with SF who gave up one less point than we did. Miiami's defense was average. Also ... O'Brien actually had a better year than Marino, and McNeil ran for over 1,300 yards, while the Dolphins had a bunch of nobody's at RB ... and we still couldn't win the damn division.
Actually, Jets were in first place after big OT win vs Pats but then played Lions on Thanksgiving and got our asses kicked. Add another loss to the Bears and we were lucky to get in to WC @ 11-5. IIRC, Broncos went 11-5 and did not make the play-offs Fumbled kick-off return by Johnny Hector lead to Johnny Rembert return for TD which killed us in WC play-off game
Yeah, the Broncos were 11-5 and did not make the playoffs. The Jets had a 9-3 conference record which gave them the first wild card spot over the Patriots (8-4) and Broncos (8-4). The Patriots beat out the Broncos due to a better record vs common opponents.
Best team of my lifetime was the 98 Jets because we could throw the ball down the field. Pretty much the only team of my lifetime that could consistently do that. One of these days we'll find a QB.
Since the 68 team was the ONLY Championship Team we have produce that means all other NYJ or NYT teams from 1960 till now we were losers so they are all equal since they acheived NOTHING :sad:
