U R right this is ALL that matters bottom line, "the sb3 team is the best one, since it's the ONLY one with a trophy. RESULTS COUNT!" For some reason Junc is on a campaign to degrade that 68 team because he is jealous he has NEVER seen a NYJ WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
"extraordinary amount of breaks in their favor" I'm not getting involved in this argument, but you could say that about last year's Packers team, the '07 Giants team, the '05 Steelers team, etc. You could say that about any team that's won a championship. And Champ, your usage of shortened txt-messaged type words, emocons and capital letters is hilarious. There's no way you're pushing 60 or 70.
did they get byues they didn't earn? did they play in extremely weak divisions w/ no competition? Sure most title teams catch some breaks now and then but it lined up perfectly for the '68 Jets.
Based upon what you have written in this thread, you absolutely would be more impressed with the 1968 Jets had they gone 9-5, played Houston in a playoff game, and then gone on to beat the Raiders and Colts. Yes, teams try to get byes now. Problem is the playoffs were not set up like that in 1968. The week of the Chiefs-Raiders game was to be a week off anyway. The Jets earned the weekend off by dominating their division and beating the Oilers twice. Yes, the AFC Eastern Division overall was weaker than the AFL Western Division, but again all 10 AFL teams played one another. You are really splitting hairs here, nyjunc. The teams' schedules were not drastically different than the others. Compare the 2011 Jets schedule to the 2011 Steelers schedule. The Steelers have many different opponents than do the Jets. Compare the 1968 Raiders schedule to the 1968 Jets schedule. What you will find are the same exact opponents.
No, I would have been more impressed if they were 12-2 w/ Oak or KC's sched or if they had one quality team in their division. I am impressed w/ what the '68 team did, even w/ an easy road it's not easy to win. I'm just not going to bow down to them and bash other Jet teams that didn't have the same path lined w/ gold. BOTH teams were supposed to have byes but instead the Jets sat home while oak had to play an extra game then travel across Country to face them. The jets played 4 games against teams w/ winning record. KC played 5 including 3 against the Jets and Oak. oak played 5 including 3 against the Jets and KC. and yet both teams had a better record than the Jets plus last 3 teams in the West won 17 games while the other FOUR teams in the East combined to win 17 games. I appreciate what the '68 team did but that doesn't mean I can't be honest about them.
Do you consider the 2009 team of having an easy road when 2 teams didn't play their starters (including Peyton Manning) in weeks 16 and 17 allowing a 7-7 team to back into the playoffs? That's the ultimate path lined with gold.
The '09 team was a 9-7 team, they made a great run but that team doeasn't compare to '68. There's no such thing as backing into the playoffs, you either win the games you need to win or you don't. We got Indy backups for a qtr and a half in a close game then bashed Cincy's starters before they pulled them.
Champ is 100% right...it's all about the VLT. And I don't want to hear anything about the '68 team getting breaks. Anyone who is lucky enough to have been a NY Jets football fan on that cold Sunday in 1969 knows what kind of pressure there was. There were no breaks that day.... nothing but pressure. Unbelievable pressure. The kind of pressure that makes the best of quarterbacks' knees buckle. The kind that makes HOF WRs drop passes, blockers blow assignments, RBs fumble balls. The Jets were more than statistical underdogs that day, they were the laughing stock of most of the NFL. The upstarts from that other wannabe league. The Broadway Partying Pups who "deserved" to get their little asses kicked. And the team with that faggot for a quarterback who ran around Manhatten dressed like some little faggoty fop. Him with his fur coats. The Colts are going to embarrass the little faggot. And this little smartass son of a bitch is actually out predicting a win? A win, while all of Vegas and everyone in the know knows full well this NY team comes from nothing more than a Pop Warner league? You've got to be fucking kidding! This is a game I've got to bet on... give me some of this action, because the NY Jets are going down! So there's a lot more to that game than the games leading up to it. It's almost got more to do with the EVENTS leading up to it. Namath stuck his neck out big time. And most sports writers and bookies and old-time NFL fans scoffed at him and his team mates. They were a joke to many. The pressure was unbelievable. And then they went out and did it. And no one could fucking believe it. Greatest Jets team so far. Case closed.
Hahaha my "flawed" logic. The Oilers were better than their record indicated. They had a solid defense and a good running game, but had 6 games against teams that were superior than they were. I have never said they were a top level team, but they were better than their record indicates. The Chargers were a good team but were really no better than a 9 win team. You claim they had a weak schedule? This is incorrect. They actually had one of the most difficult schedules. The Jets were 5-1 against teams that were a combined 46-10. There's no "dressing up" those numbers. Those are facts. That comment had nothing to do with the Raiders.
This is an interesting question. As a youngster in the late 60's I watched a lot of Jets games because my mom went to school Joe Namath. Then the Steelers crawled out of the outhouse to become the best ever and I never really paid much attention to the Jets again. I recently looked up some stats to shut up a Browns fans and found that the Browns and Jets have two of the worst records in modern NFL history (since the merger in 1970). The Browns mediocrity wasn't a surprise to me but the Jets was. I can see why Jets fans are excited about what is going on now..............but I still wouldn't want Side Show Rex as a head coach.
They had a solid D and running game against BAD teams. if Hou was better than their record than SD was worse than their record. SD had one win over a winning team, they fattened up on the weak part of their sched. The Jets were 1-1 in the reg season against the only other quality teams in the AFL that year. They had a creampuff ride to the SB
How does HOU being better than their record make SD worse than their record? SD was a 9 win team and their record ended up indicating that. Hou was an 8 maybe 9 win team but faced the Chiefs and Jets twice as well as the Raiders and Chargers. All 4 of those teams were clearly better than them. SD were a good team who played an extremely difficult schedule. It's not all black and white. They were an 8 or 9 win team and won 9 games. You need to read more than some stat sheet or the standings only to truly understand these teams. The Jets were 5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. They beat the Chiefs on the road, the Chargers on the road and minus a disasterous finish would have beaten the Raiders on the road. They beat the Raiders and the Colts in back to back games in the playoffs. And despite your claims that the only reason the Jets won were because the Raiders played the Chiefs the week before and had to play in NY; the Raiders had the lead w/ 8 mins left and were marching down the field to win the AFLCG which refutes your excuses.
SD was as good as their record but Houston wasn't? It's amazing how that works. They both feasted on bad teams, SD was a little better at beating bad teams. That was the difference btw 7 and 9 wins that year. You keep trotting out the 5-1 nonsense. They were 1-1 against the only quality teams they faced in the reg season then got a bye and played at home against a better team thatbeat them in the reg season. It was an easy road. The Raiders had the lead- so what? if they don't ahve to play the week before, travel across Country and get to play a one game playoff at home do they beat oak? Most likely not.
Why do we all continue to respond to this guy? He dumps on logic for the purposes of, if I understand him correctly, showing that he's the only one with the courage to admit that the Jets had an easy road in '68. Are you sure that's courage? Sounds like the old saying..."everyone else is crazy except for me" I think this thread has run its course.
It's a message board, we share our opinions. if you don't agree try to prove your case, if not move along.
If you had been a season ticketholder for much of the time since '69, those statistics wouldn't surprise you at all. We had many losing seasons and many mediocre seasons. It's easier to count the winning seasons than it is the others. Coaching was a problem, as was poor drafting, and the likes of Dan Marino and Don Shula and, well, just plain old SOJ. Left the parking lot frustrated many more times than I left it elated.
You can’t seem to grasp the concept of looking deeper than just their record to get a better understanding of how good these teams were. Maybe you should read something other than the standings sheet. The Chargers had a lethal passing game and a great OL. They put up 27 or more points in 8 of the 14 games. They had a HOF coach and 2 HOF players on offense. Their defense was average however. This was a team that could win 9 games, but in all likely hood no more. They weren’t as good as the top 3 teams but were a good team and a tough team to beat. The Oilers were another team that could win 8 or 9 games and were favored to win the division heading into the season. They had a very tough schedule, especially out of the gate having to play the Chiefs, Chargers and Raiders in 3 of the first 4 games. Then they lost their starting QB 3 days before the 2nd Dolphins game which they would lose and fall to 1-4 meanwhile the Jets were 3-1 and pretty much in control of the division. The Oilers had a really good defense and a good running game which made them a tough team to beat. However a tough schedule really set them back. The Jets by beating the Oilers twice won them the division. Funny how them being 5-1 against the top teams in Pro Football is “nonsense”. It’s a fact that the Jets went 5-1 vs. teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. You want to discard it as “nonsense” because it disproves your theory that the only reason why the Jets won the SB was because of their “easy road”. The Raiders had the lead AND were marching down the field for the GW score before they fumbled the ball. If playing in NY and having to play a playoff game the week before affected them the way you are making it look like it did, then they shouldn’t have been close in the AFLCG. Who’s to say if we play that game in Oakland w/ no games the week before that we don’t win. We were a disastrous collapse away from beating them in the Heidi game.
