I initially said the era from 67-69. It's a fact that their QB had to have emergency appendectomy 3 days before the Dolphins game and it absolutely affected them in that game. They absolutely were better than their record would indicate. What difference does it really make what their road to the championship was. In the late 60's we won a SB Title and HAVE NOT over the last decade. Thus the late 60's were our greatest era. This era is not better and these teams are not better than the late 60's teams.
I love your apples and oranges argument. I added somethings you somehow must have forgotten to include.
yep, that proves 1968 was the best season but outside of '68 we have ZERO playoff wins in that era and '68 was served up ona silver platter. Give the '98 jets a home game vs. den and we win the SB that year, give the last 2 teams home title game apps and we likely win those games.
excuses as usual. Miami won 5 games that year, they weren't good. A week later w/ the same QB Hou beat a bad Pats team. They were exactly what their record said they were, how can anyone argue that a team that was .500 2 straight years wasn't mediocre? MAYBE I could buy that excuse for a single season but they proved over TWO years they were a .500 team. We didn't win a single playoff game outside of '68, the rest of the era was beyond pathetic. We haven't won a title in this era but we have been consistently good and it matters that they had an easy road, give some of our better recent teams roads like that and we have multiple championships this decade.
Ah you see Junc has what I called that losing syndrome & all those losing years have made think just having a winning record makes us successful. He has still not realized that since 01/13/69 that the NYJs are LOSERs since they have won 0 rings during every one of those eras That would be 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, & 10s so there are no misunderstandings:jets:
Well since U were NOT at that PO game vs Oakland in Dec 68 how can you say anything about that game. Now in my case I was there live & in person & until that lateral late in the 4th qtr we would have been doomed & never have appeared in SB3. Now if you call that a gimmee that it just proves how little you know of earlier NYJ history
68 was served up on a silver platter???? :rofl::rofl: In 1998 we had a 10-0 lead against the Broncos IN DENVER. Being on the road isn't why we lost. It didn't cause the turnovers. It didn't cause the defense to not tackle Davis. In 2009 we had a double digit lead IN Indianapolis and the way we tackled to start last year's game it wouldn't have mattered where that game was played.
I think if the game vs. Indy was played in the Meadowlands Manning wouldn't have gotten as hot as he did in the second half.
Clearly losing their QB THREE days before the game impacted them when they played the Dolphins. That SAME QB had a full week of preparation before the Pats game. These are FACTS. They were better than their record indicated. They had a good defense and a solid running game. They played 6 games against the elite teams and were not on their level. The late 60’s era was better because they have a SB TITLE and they were better teams. Our teams over the last decade were not as good as those teams in the late 60’s
Who's to say we would have started off so hot? Would we have gotten an 80 yard TD to Braylon? Would we have gotten a Brad Smith deep pass to Cotch?
Not necessarily, but it probably would have been a lower scoring game which would work more in our favor.
Well either way, we had the lead in the 2nd half against the Colts in Indy and didn't get the job done.
Yes BUT & a big BUT the game was not so what U are saying has no validity whatsoever but ur HO that if the game was played in the M/lands we would have won. Since it was not played in our building what you posted is what I call coulda, woulda, shoulda. I guess since it looks like we will do not win the division this year so keep your excuse in your back pocket & can use it again after this season is ended :jets:
Well, I'd have to say second best all time. Only the early to mid 80's Jets teams could possibly rival the current Jets for second place, and even they only went to one AFC Championship game. The Parcells years were too short lived/too Testaverde getting KO'd to be better than either of the aforementioned eras
we beat them if we are at home. no doubt about it. The emotion of our building in a title game the last 2 years would have been huge and we all know how peyton plays outdoors in january. They are excuses, they played an awful Miami team and should ahve been able to beat them w/ you or I at QB. They were exactly what their record indicated. 2 staright years at .500 doesn't lie.
Wow, I dont normally agree with Junc, but he's right on this one. 68-69 were 2 great years for the franchise. The 98-now has been the best stretch of sustained success ever. I get what Junc is saying. Those were the 2 best years, but 2 years is not sustained success, like we've had recently.
Um...You think we beat a team that nearly went 16-0 at home when they had Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith, Shannon Sharpe, Ed McCaffery and a great defense. No doubt? Really? We had the lead IN Indianapolis so playing there instead of at home didn't cause us to lose. Now you're being ridiculous. They don't have a chance w/ you at QB. With me they would have had a chance but not with you. :grin: 3 days with a mediocre QB wasn't enough time. He threw 3 INTs in that game. Give me a break. They were a better team than their record indicates. Everything is not black and white like you try to make it out to be. They had one of the top defenses in the league. Were coming off a season where they won the AFL East. Had a good running game. Their biggest issue was that they had to play 6 games against the elite teams in the AFL and they were not on the level of those teams. The one other loss they had (the one you keep bringing up) came after they lost their QB 3 days before the game.
It was three years of sustained success and they won a championship. If we had won a championship in the 98-present era then that would be different.
