I agree that the last decade has been the longest period of success in Jets history, but having seen the Jets play from the mid 60's until now, I have to say that the Jets teams in the late 60s were better that today's Jets. You are leaving out one important fact when comparing the two eras. In order to even make the playoffs in 1968, the Jets had to win the division. They had the 2nd best record in the AFL and went 11-3. The Jets of the past decade won one division title (in 2002 at 9-7). In 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2010, the Jets were either the 5 or 6 seed. That doesn't even get the Jets in the playoffs in 1968. 1969 was the first year of the Wild Card in the AFL, when 2nd place teams in each division made the playoffs. The other thing you are leaving out is how complete of a team the Jets of that era were. The ONLY reason there wasn't a longer period of sustained excellence was because Namath was injured in 1970 and 1971. The Jets had one of the best defenses in the AFL back then and those defensive teams were wasted with the likes of Al Woodall and Bob Davis at QB. By the the time Namath got back on the field in 1972, the Jets began a decline that was caused mainly by the unwillingness of the front office to pay players - Biggs, Riggins etc. - poor drafting, and age.
This has nothing to do w/ PSLs and everything to do w/ what I know of the game. I gave up my tickets rather then get screwed by a PSL, I still go to every game for a fraction of the price. We have an excellent young nucleus and we will be good for many years to come. There will be a down year now and then but we'll be contenders more often than not. Have you not noticed Brandon Morre missed all of camp and Mangold was out for 3 games? Do you think that hurts the offense? the only bad offensive game we had was the Bal game where the OL was dreadful, have you noticed the OL getting better each of the last 2 weeks as Mangold gets healthy? Did you notice each of the last 2 years stretces as bad, if not worse, than what we went through w/ those 3 tough road games in a row? we may tank this season but we've overcome more in the last 2 years so it is silly to give up already.
They did have to win the division, a division where the next best team was a .500 team each season. We have had to deal w/ a dynatsy team most of the last decade in our division. There are a million more teams now so obviously there will be more playoff teams. The odds of winning the div back then was 20%, the odds of earning a WC is 18%. I am not trying to knock the '68 team, just pointing out it wasn't too difficult to win that div title and injuries are part of the game. If Vinny doesn't go down in '99 maybe we have our SB? if Chad wasn't always hurt maybe we have our SB? The '68 team is the best in franchise history and I agree it is underrated but that winning era was too quick.
No one is giving up already. I am talking about lofty expectations as they relate to this thread and the comparisons of this team to others in the past. You were saying if this season goes south we'd be back very quickly and you're basing this solely on the youth of our team. I am saying expectations are way too high and remain that way despite what I am now seeing on the field and your post is a good example of this.
I base it on having a good, young nucleus, a good HC/CS and a good GM. If we finish 7-9, we will be back b/c I have confidence in the guys running the tam to bring in new players to get it done.
We had to win the division outright to get a chance to play in a playoff game. The Jets last won the division in 02 in a 3 way tie. We also lost our one playoff game in 69 to the SB champions. The last 2 years we lost to teams that didn't win a championship. Saying we won 4 playoff games and lost 2 when the 68/69 team only had to win 2 and lost one misses the point. That team in 68 won the division beat the 2nd best team in the Confrence and the best team in the NFL. The 69 Team lost in the first round to the SB champs. The Jets of the last 2 years lost to the runner up. The Jets haven't won a division since 02 in a fluky 3 team tie. The 98 team lost to the SB champs as did the 82 team. Beating teams that don't own hardware in a playoff tournament that has decidely mediocre teams in it doesn't mean that much. Especially when we were destroyed by the team that didn't win the SB both years.
The '68 and '69 teams won divisions where the 2nd place team was a .500 tean, in '02 when we won the division the last place team was .500. In '68 the raiders had to play an extra game while we had a bye and despite losing to Oak and having a worse record we got the chance to host the title game. Which year were we destroyed again? We had a 2nd half lead against Indy and if our D can make one stop late we have a chance to win in Pitt.
You need to retake math. The odds of making the playoffs in 1968 was 20% (2 of 10 teams made it or 1 of 5 in each division). The odds of making the playoffs today is 37.5 % (6 of 16 teams make it). You have a 25% of winning the division (1 in 4). On another point, how is a team a dynasty when they haven't won a championship since the 2004 season. That is 6 seasons and counting without a SB for the Pats. They may have been a dynasty from 2001-2004, but not since. Let's look at it this way. The 1968 Jets won 13 of 16 games and a championship. That is a winning percentage of 81% including 2-0 in the playoffs with a Super Bowl win. The only other Jets team to come close to a season like that is the 1998 Jets, who went 13-5 for a winning percentage of 72% including 1-1 in the playoffs and a loss in the conference championship. Has any other Jets team in the last decade come close to that 82% winning percentage? Your bashing of the players on the 1968 Jets and the team itself has gotten way out of control. You have no idea how good that team was or what they accomplished. I am sick of defending a team and a group of players you never saw and and era of football that you simply cannot compare to anything from the 80s until today. The 1968 Jets were the greatest Jets team and Namath was the Jets best player ever. Period. Stop with your nerdy calculations and mathematical analyses of games and players in a sport that does not lend itself to numbers. The 1968 Jets were the best team in football when it counted - in December and January - beating teams that were 13-2 and 14-1 when the Jets played them. The QB of that team was the league and Super Bowl MVP that season. When another Jets team and player accomplishes those things, then we can argue. Until then, your attempt to compare a litany of 9 and 10 win Jets teams that received the last playoff spots in an expanded playoff system to that team simply fails. And your attempt to compare QBs from this era to QBs of the 60s by looking at statistics also fails. Namath's peers consider him one of the greatest QBs in AFL history and one of the greatest QBs of that era. That should be enough for you and everyone else who never saw him play a single down.
OMG. Poster of the fucking year and I am not kidding. No one surpasses slap-down expectations like this poster.
Nice ownage right there. Junc is such an argumentative little douche it actually makes my blood boil. I swear I'd just love to punch the dude in the fucking face if I ever had the chance.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: A "dynasty" needs to last more than 2 seasons, win a division title now and again, and at least make the Super Bowl. Who the hell thinks the Chargers are a dynasty? NE, Pitt, New Orleans, and Indy are dynasties. Probably Philly. If the Jets were in the AFCN, they'd get their clocks clean regularly by the Ravens and Steelers and never make the playoffs. The Jets have been lucky the last two years that they had the Bills to beat up on, but that's not likely to happen this season. PS... the demise of the Patriots has been predicted for the last 5 years or so. Doesn't look to be happening.
:up: I am old enough to remember Joe Willy playing in that Super Bowl, and what this poster says is the absolute truth. He was electrifying on the field, something Mark Sanchez isn't now and isn't likely to ever be. You cannot look at QB stats from that era and equate them to the stats of today's QBs. It was a totally different game. QBs today couldn't really compete with the likes of Namath and later Stabler and Bradshaw in their own era's style of football. They worry too much about their completion percentages and QB ratings.
In the past 7 NFL seasons, there have been 6 different Super Bowl champions. The only team to win twice was Pittsburgh, in 2005 and 2008. Two championships in four years is not a dynasty. Other than Pittsburgh, only two teams have even appeared in the Super Bowl more than once - Indy and New England - and each won 1 and lost 1. NE and Indy appeared twice in four years and lost one of the two. None of these examples is a dynasty. The last NFL dynasty was NE from 2001-2004 when they won 3 of 4 titles.
It's just a different game now. Bill Walsh revolutionized the passing game in the early 80s with the WC offense and its short passes. Plus the dozens of rules changes to favor the offense and the passing game changed the game. In the 60s, football was a running league. Passing offenses were vertical more than anything. Bump and run and contact by DBs was legal and part of the game. Defensive linemen could head slap the OL and roughing the passer was never called. QBs were killed. There were no 3 or 5 step drops. Everything was a 7 step drop. Completion percentages over 50% were considered good. Throwing more TD passes than picks was also considered very good. Throwing for 3000 yards in a season was a rarity. Throwing for 4000 was phenomenal.
You need to retake reading. I said the odds of winning a WC berth is 18%. 16 AFC teams minus 4 div winners= 12 teams. 2/12= 17%(i was slightly off so maybe I don't know math:grin That was in regards to our making it the last 2 years as a WC team. Adding the div title doesn't bring it up to 37.5% b/c we don't have a chance to win the AFC North, South or West which those #s would indicate. We have a 25% chance to win the div and a 17% chance to win the WC. Both are more difficult than winning a division where the 2nd best team was a .500 team. They are an AFC East Dynasty, they have won all but one div title since 2001 in a season Tom Brady played. They are always among the best teams in the league. who cares about win %? they played 3 teams w/ winning records in the reg season, they faced a team w/ a better record that beat them and got to play them at home in the title game. I wasn't bashing the players, just presenting facts about their road to the title. Here's that reading thing again- I said over and over and over again the '68 team was the best team but that era was not the best era b/c it was too small of a window for success. Stop using your perceptions and respond to my posts. Show me where I was bashing them other than presenting facts about the weak sched they played and about being lucky to get the title game at home? I appreciate the '68 team, best Jets team ever but one year where we won a playoff game is not better than a decade of making it consistently so this ERA has been better thought '68 was obviously the best year. except for the small little fact that most of that post is incorrect.
whether it was the jets under joe willie, or the bills under kelly, unlike the cheatriots they didn't get where they got by spying/cheating. since the league shut down the spycam operation, the pats have won exactly zero trophies. josh mcdaniels even tried to replicate the spycam operation in denver. bellichick didn't exactly burn up the league in cleveland. so much for the dynasty myth (2001-2004).
DOWN GOES JUNC...... DOWN GOES JUNC !!!!!! DING DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER !!!!!!!! FANTASTIC POST WHITE SHOE WILLIE !!!!!!!! :jets:
You keep acting like the 68-69 Oilers were weak teams. They weren't great teams, but they weren't mediocre either. In '68 6 of their 7 losses were against the Chiefs, Jets, Chargers and Raiders. All of the top teams in the league. Clearly they weren't at the level of the top teams but they still had a very good defense and a decent running game. Their loss to the Dolphins came after losing their starting QB Pete Beathard to an emergency apendectomy. They were better than atheir 7-7 record would indicate. Regarding the Raiders having to play at Shea. It didn't seem to bother the Colts who had the travel to Cleveland Municipal Stadium to play the Browns. In 1969 the Raiders had the home game in the AFL Champoinship against the Chiefs and lost. Regarding that era not being the best because it was a short time of success. What difference does that make? During that brief time we had more success than we have ever had since; including this past decade. That brief era brought us a SB Championship. What has the last decade brought us? 4 different coaches, 3 different GMs, 4 different starting QBs and zero championships. You mentioned the Patriots. The Patriots only beat us once in the playoffs. We didn't beat the Raiders x2, the Steelers x2 and the Colts. The Patriots weren't the only thing keeping us from a championship. Our teams just weren't good enough. And they weren't as good as the late 60's teams. This past decade has been fun and it's been great that we have been competitive and have been a threat to make the playoffs. But it doesn't equal up to the late 60's teams because these teams just haven't been as good and have not delivered a championship.
Check the facts, this one is no contest. he showed the odds of making the playoffs today are 37.5%, 6 of 16 teams. That is INCORRECT, that would only be correct if we could win any division. We have a 1 in 4 chance to win the div, slightly easier than 1968/69 we have a 2 in 12 chance to earn a WC berth, slightly tougher than 1968/69 about the dynasty team- how is winning 8 of 9 div titles w/ Brady not a dynasty? putting aside 4 SB apps and 3 SB wins in that span they have DOMINATED our division. Where was that team in '68 or '69? You guys in your Namath underoos can pretend like they faced a rough road but the facts don't lie.
