He's only 2 years in. Check BB's resume after 2 years or w/o Brady and let me know how Hall worthy it is.
[/QUOTE] yes our '99 team was an 8-8 team, I don't care they won their last 4 after they were essentailly elominated from the playoff race. They beat Miami twice and Miami lost 6 of their last 8 plus lost 62-7 in the playoffs, dallas lost 3 of their last 5 and lost 27-10 in the playoffs, Seattle lost 5 of their last 6 plus getting beat by that Miami team that would lose 62-7 in the playoffs(lost at home). Tight games do not get you bonus points. Many games are close, the good teams find ways to win and the bad/mediocre teams find ways to lose. It doesn't matter if davis was terreible, he was prepared to play and they were playing a bad team. I'm not diminishing anything I'm telling the truth. They had an easy path to the SB. I didn't say oak was a lock in oak but their odds go way up. It would have been much harder to win in oak than at home.
That's my point exactly. To say a HC, any HC, has a shot at the HOF after two years is ridiculous. HC's need multiple Super Bowl titles to even have a remote shot at getting into the HOF.
I agree but he is off to a good start. If he can finish the job and win a SB or 2 then we can start dicussing that possibility but it is too early.
Okay, so color me optimistic, but Ryan's resume so far is better than most new coaches (and previous coordinators). Yes, of course he'll need many winning years including the VLT. This is all speculation, mind you. I said he has a possible chance. Relax, we're just having speculative conversation and exchanging ideas and opinions.
That’s right junc - the Jets beat three playoff teams in the last 4 games. They went 7-2 in their last 9 games, but somehow that team was mediocre??? Who’s asking for bonus points? Playing the top teams in the league tough, and finishing w/ a 9-5 record proves they were a good team. Davis was prepared to play? Really? And you know this how? Where’s your proof? Did you base it on his 5/17 passing? 3 INTs? No, you are diminishing their accomplishments. They went 5-1 against teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. If they were only fortunes of luck of a creampuff run – as is your claim – then they would not have gone 5-1 against those teams. The Raiders were 6-1 on the road and 6-1 at home. I don’t think travelling to New York had any effect on the game and the fact that they held the lead w/ 8 minutes left and were marching down for the GW score seems to prove that for me. Was getting the extra week off an advantage for the Jets. Maybe in theory. Maybe it negatively affected the Jets. Maybe having that week off hurt their rhythm – they won 8 of their last 9 games to end the season. Maybe it’s what caused Maynard to pull his hamstring. In what way did Oakland having to play KC the week before affect the outcome of the game? Where was this “advantage” for the Jets evident during the game? If you’re going to make black & white comments then you need to back them up and can start by answering those two questions.
3 playoff teams playing terrible football at the time and we did it after blowing that Indy game and being humiliated by a bad Giant team to all but eliminate us at 4-8. We earned our 8-8 record, we were a mediocre team. They finished 9-5 b/c they beat: 3-11 Cincy twice 7-7 Houston 5-9 denver twice 5-8-1 Miami 4-10 Pats 1-12-1 Bills(how did they get that one win?) That's 8 of their 9 wins. If he played the week before, that would lead me to believe the other QB was injured in that game so he knew he'd be starting/ 1-1 in the reg season against the only other quality teams in the AFL why do teams fight for byes if they don't help? You don't think playing while another team has a bye then flying across Country(by 1960s standards) would affect a team at all?
We were a better than 8-8 football team and you know it. We had poor QB play thru the first 8 games but that team was a much better team than 8-8. Sometimes teams’ record are better than what their team really is. Take last year’s Kansas City Chiefs as a prime example. How about the 2007 Miami Dolphins? The Chargers played the top teams tough and beat the Raiders. They were a good team. The Jets and Chiefs had to score 4th Qtr TD’s to pull out games against the Chargers. In the 2nd game against the Raiders the score was 24 – 19 going into the 4th quarter. And don’t get me started about the Bills lone win. There have been a plethora of teams during this recent era that were terrible teams that we lost to. 02 Bears, 06 Browns, 09 Bills and 10 Dolphins come to mind. You can lead yourself to believe whatever you want, but you are incorrect. Beathard had to have emergency appendectomy 3 days before the Dolphins game. That is a fact. 5-1 against teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. Those were all quality teams and they were all quality wins. You didn’t answer either of my questions. Please answer them.
We weren't better than 8-8, we were horrible early, won a few games then w/ a real chance to get in the race we failed at Indy and vs. the Giants. W/ the playoffs done at 4-8 we then beat 4 playoff teams that were playing awful football at the time. Sometimes teams are a little better or wrse than their record, SD '68 was worse and Hou '68 was exactly what their record said. You don't get anything for playing teams tough. Miami has lost a ton of close games this year but they deserve to be 0-7. whatever the excuses are they lost to a terrible dolphin team they should have been able to beat w/ a QB who played significant snaps the week before. It wasn't like this guy hadn't played in years. You keep ignoring all the facts, I'll ignore your silly questions. 1-1 against the only quality teams they faced in the reg season, then a bye they didn't earn and homefield against a team w/ a better record and had beaten them PLUS we only needed to win one game to get to the SB. What a rough road.
Up to now Revis is it a sure fire HOF As for RR I actually have him on a death pool as if we do not get the VLT THIS year & also miss the POs next year he will be on the clock I mean death clock. If they miss the POs also in 2012 then I think Woody will pull the trigger. This is just my HO & while I hope we snag the VLT so far from what I seen this year it will not be the year especially since RR cited this is the very best NYJ EVER & the fans & media expect the VLT this year. If we tank the next 2 games the pressure on RR from all sides will be overwhelming. You know when the big mouth does not do as promised then everybody chases the big mouth as they love to see him in boiling water :jets:
The 99 Jets were better than their record. They were terrible at the beginning of the season because Rick Mirer was terrible. It’s funny how when Lucas took over all of a sudden they couldn’t be beaten. Clearly they were a better team than 8-8. Did the Chargers get anything for losing those games? They were a good team and were not worse than their record. If you are going to make that statement please provide some evidence other than they lost to teams who were better than they were. That really proves nothing. The Chargers were a good team. They had a good QB, two 1,000 yard receivers, a strong running game, and probably the best OL in the AFL (if not then they were 2nd behind KC) and a HOF HC. Whenever your weak arguments are exposed you play this pathetic game by calling other views or facts that are presented as excuses. It’s a fact that the Oilers starting QB had an emergency appendectomy 3 days before the Dolphin game. It’s a fact that Davis was a terrible QB. And this is priceless. Seriously, if you can’t answer the questions just openly admit you don’t know what you are talking about. I asked you two questions. Please answer them. When they played the best teams Pro Football could offer they went 5-1. By you saying the Chargers weren’t a quality team proves all that needs to be proven about how little you know about this topic.
Westhoff has absolutely no shot at enshrinement in the PFHOF for the simple fact that assistant coaches have not received the honor. If assistant coaches were to be elected down the road, guys like Bill Arnsparger, Buddy Ryan, Bud Carson, and Monte Kiffin would likely make it before Westhoff. Agreed on Revis, Mangold, and LT. Do not agree on Ferguson. He's not even at a borderline pace at this time. He needs more All-Pro nods. Revis and Mangold are considered to be tops at their positions whereas Ferguson is considered to be pretty good at his position. Boozer has no shot. He never gained 1,000 scrimmage yards (rushing + receiving) in any season and he does not have a good number of All-Pro honors. Klecko is a borderline case. He played 12 seasons, but in two of those he played in fewer than half of the Jets games. He did not play for a Super Bowl champion and the electors hold that against him. That, and being injured frequently are the two reasons why he is not a member of the PFHOF. I do not get why you are so hung up on the schedule considering all the AFL teams played all the other AFL teams in 1968. Can't you see how you are splitting hairs here? Again, this is not like comparing the '11 Steelers and the '11 Jets- two teams that have a bunch of uncommon opponents. Also, the Jets had to play at Kansas City and at Oakland in the regular season. Those teams did not come to New York. Would you agree that that was kind of shitty luck for the Jets, that they had to play those tough foes on the road? Yes, the Jets received a break with the site of the AFL Championship Game. It was a rotational thing. The Eastern Division hosted that game in even-numbered years and the Jets happened to be pretty good in an even-numbered year. Is it possible, nyjunc, that the Jets, knowing they were pretty good in the summer of 1968, maybe took a couple games off in the regular season? Is this maybe why they lost to shitass Buffalo and the hapless Broncos? The Jets lost the division in '67 to Houston. In '68, they made sure they beat Houston. They won a hard-fought game in the Astrodome and then spanked the Oilers in a mudfest in New York later in the season. Their lone loss to a good team was in the Heidi game. In that game, they squandered a 32-29 lead with roughly a minute to go. It looks to me like the Jets knew they were good in training camp and they knew they could coast in a few games. They paid the price twice and that's why they went 11-3 as opposed to 13-1. They knew they would host the title game so long as they won the Eastern Division. Think about it. This is why you going so nuts over KC and OAK going 12-2 against the Jets going 11-3 is bonkers to me. You are making way too big a deal over it.
all of a suddent hey couldn't be beaten except in the 2 biggest games of the year where they had to win and failed. It was nice to finish the season at .500 but we took advantage of 3 teams playing awful football at the time who were quick outs in postseason. I just want to know how Houston could be better than their record despite not beating any good teams and if you use that rationalization how is SD not worse than their record b/c they feasted on bad teams? My weak arguments:rofl: This is like the '85 Bears against the '96 jets- congrats on being Rich Kotite. They are silly questions, just as silly as your 5-1 statement when it has NOTHING to do w/ this argument. You are deflecting from YOUR weak arguments as usual. I love how the Chargers are as good as their record b/c they had a winning record but Houston is better than their record b/c they were only .500:rofl: and you are calling my arguments weak? The facts are Hoston and SD feasted on bad teams to accumulate their wins. If you can't beat good teams you aren't a good team, it's like TB last year. Sure they had a good record but they beat one team above .500 and that team pulled starters in week 17 w/ nothing to play for. Sure playing at the only other 2 quality teams was a bad break but it was more than made up for w/ having such a weak division, having zero other quality teams in the league, getting a bye and hosting the title game off that bye needing just one win to reach the SB. So now they took games off- this is why they lost to 2 awful teams? I'm sure that's possible but it still goes on the resume as a bad loss. If the Jets who had never been in a postseason game were thinking about coasting that would be a really bad sign. it's not like they had a history of success, they had never been in postseason and choked away a chance the year before. I would hope they weren't coasting. I'm not making a big deal about it, just pointing out facts. The road was about as easy as it gets for a team and your coasting comment makes the case even more rock solid. if they had it so easy they could coast doesn't that essentially prove my point? I think it's already been proven but if you believe they coasted doesn't that make it impossible to prove that their road was anything but a cupcake one?
It’s not all black and white. Do some research. I’ve made my case several times in this thread. The Oilers were better than a .500 team. The Chargers played tight games against the Jets, Chiefs and twice against the Raiders. The Jets and Chiefs had to score 4th Qtr TD’s to pull out games against the Chargers. The Chargers defeated the Raiders IN Oakland and in the 2nd game against the Raiders the score was 24 – 19 going into the 4th quarter. You have delusions of grandeur if you think you are the “85 Bears” in this debate when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. They are silly questions? They are legitimate questions. If traveling to NY for that game had an effect on the outcome where was it? At what point did the effect take place? Personally I think the week off hurt the Jets. They went Three and out on 3 of their first 4 drives. The Jets were penalized 4 times the Raiders only twice. The Jets had two turnovers the Raiders none. And my 5-1 vs teams w/ a combined 46-10 record statement is extremely relevant because you have been trying to diminish the Jets accomplishment. Really? That’s what I based my argument around? The least you could do is not lie. But I guess when you are proven wrong and are clueless about a topic you’ll resort to these types of tactics.
You have made your case and it is a weak one, you can make all the excuses you want but that team was .500 for 2 straight years and in the 2 playoff games they played they were absolutely humiliated. They proved they were a mediocre team and the record reflects that. Congrats to SD for playing tight games! did they win those games? we lost a bunch of close games in 1996 when we went 1-15. they lost 40-3 in the 2nd KC game and while it was 24-19 entering the 4th it was eventually 34-19 and the game was over. You don't think playing while the Jets were on a bye then travelling across Country affected oak at all? You just find excuse after excuse and keep posting that silly 5-1 # when the debate has been about the road to the SB. They were 1-1 against the ONLY quality AFL teams in the reg season then faced Oak off a bye they didn't earn at home needing one win for the SB. Show me an easier road to the SB? Possibly only the '72 phins had it easier but at least they took care of business and didn't lsoe to two awful teams in the reg season and they had to win multiple playoff games. Walter Payton just scored another TD.
What does the 69 team have to do with the 68 team? They won the division in 67 so why not include that? They got humiliated by a superior team. Wow, what a shocker! That proves nothing. I have proven my case. Your arguments are weak and you have provided no viable evidence to prove your argument. Now you’re comparing the 68 Chargers to the 96 Jets? Good lord, you suck at this. The Patriots blew out the Jets last year and they lost to an inferior Dolphins team. I guess that proves the Jets weren’t as good as their record right? How does KC blowing out SD in their 2nd matchup prove anything? The 2nd SD / Oak game was close until the end and they played them tough. In both cases the Chargers were the inferior team. But unfortunately for you this does not prove they were mediocre. They were still a quality team. I’m asking you to show me at what point during the game were the Raiders affected by this cross country travel or having to play the week before. You still have yet to prove it. I have made a stronger case that the week off negatively affected the Jets. You continue to try and diminish the 68 Jets’ accomplishment. They went 5-1 against teams w/ a combined 46-10 record. And again, if you think the Chargers weren’t a quality team than you really need to quit this debate because YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! You are clueless. Dig deeper. It’s not all black and white. Do some research. Look at more than just a box score. The fantasy land in your head must be a fun place. Tell Walter I said hi. In this debate you have provided absolutely nothing. The information you provided I can get off of the standings sheet or a box score.
The '69 team has nothing to do w/ the '68 tam but the '68 team has something to do w/ the '67 team? How does that work exactly? To lose is one thing but to not be competitive? Houston was ntohing more than a mediocre team in those years. I'm using your flawed logic, the '96 jets lost a ton of close games so they must have been much bettert han 1-15, right? The Jets had a chance to prove themselves in postseason, the Oilers proved themselves in '67 and '69 in postseason. SD didn't have a chance b/c they weren't good enough. Again, you are picking and choosing your criteria. We can use the close KC-SD game but not the blowout? At any point in that game, the game was a close game where one play could make the difference. If reaction time is changed by a split second it could mean the difference. It's amazing to me that you think playing a tough KC team then travelling across Country while the Jets rested didn't help the Jets. I'm not diminishing, I am discussing the truth. I aprpeciate what they did, they earned our only SB title but they had a creampuff road to the SB. I'm sorry that I can be honest. Maybe I can make up more excuses like you! Hou was better than their TWO .500 records but SD wasn't worse than their 89-5 record despite ONE quality win. it HURT the Jets to have a bye:rofl: It didn't hurt Oak to play KC then travel across Country 1969 air travel was great! The oilers lost b/c they had a new QB even thought hat QB played the week before and was prepared to play. Did I miss any? You have been roasted in this argument, as you usually are when you match up w/ me. I do give you credit, you are great w/ coming up w/ new excuses so I tip my cap.
I was asking you why we can’t use the 67 season. You seem to want to use 69 but ignore 67. Did you not see where I said “so why not include that”? They weren’t mediocre. That’s the problem. I’m not saying they were a great team by any stretch of the imagination, it’s just not black and white. I have posted numerous reasons why the 68 SD team was a good team. Go find them. Right, the Chargers weren’t good enough to make the playoffs. I have never said they were. I said they were a good team. How am I picking and choosing criteria? Who said we couldn’t use the blowout? Go ahead and use it. It doesn’t prove your weak argument. The Chargers were in close games against the Jets, Chiefs and the Raiders twice. “If” reaction time is changed. Well, was it changed? Don’t give me “if’s”. I want proof. Show me reliable evidence that the Raiders were affected by the travel not excuses and “if’s”. How about quotes from the Raiders. Maybe they were affected, but you haven’t shown me anything. GIVE ME SOMETHING PLEASE! You are trying to diminish their accomplishments. The truth is they were 5-1 against teams with a combined 46-10 record. More lies. I am talking specifically about the 68 Oilers. Houston was better than their record was in 1968. I have provided evidence of that. I also provided evidence to prove SD was a good team. Here’s a good summary of where the teams lined up in 1968: Elite Teams NY Jets Oakland Raiders KC Chiefs Good Teams Chargers Average Teams Oilers Below Average Teams Dolphins Bad Teams Broncos Patriots Bengals Bills I have provided more evidence that the Jets may have been affected by the bye than you have to show Oakland was affected by not having one. Where’s your evidence that Oak was affected? Maybe they were but you have provided NOTHING (as usual). The Jets went 3 and out three of their first four drives. The Jets had 4 penalties vs. Oakland’s two. The Jets had 2 turnovers vs. Oakland’s none. The Oilers QB in the 2nd Dolphins game was horrible. He was clearly not prepared to play. He was thrust into the starting role 3 days before the game. He played a whopping 8 minutes in the game before. These are FACTS. Let’s go thru your excuses: The Raiders had to play the week before (with no evidence it affected their play) The Raiders had to travel to Oakland (with no evidence it affected their play) The 1969 air travel was bad and affected the Raiders (with no evidence to prove true) The Jets had a creampuff run The Chargers were mediocre because they only beat one good team (astonishingly incorrect statement) It’s so funny how you think you are roasting me here when you provide absolutely nothing. You can’t give me anything to prove your arguments. You just make blanket black and white statements and think you know what you are talking about. I provide facts. Actual information that can be proved. What you claim are excuses are facts that disprove your theories.
We can use '67 too, they lost 40-7 in their playoff game. All the facts prove Houston was a mediocre team at best. They played clsoe games- who cares? most teams lose close games, the facts are they beat ONE winning team, ONE quality team. I'm not impressed. You prove the KC game and cross Country travel didn't affect Oakland. You can't. 1968 Houston didn't beat a single team w/ a winning record- how could they be better than their record? Isn't average considered mediocre? Just b/c the Jets started slow doesn't mean they were affected by the bye- that is an excuse so you haven't proven anything, you have thrown theroies out there that cannot be proven one way or the other but common sense is on my side. Those aren't excuses, those are facts. -Oak did have to play the week before while we had a bye we didn't earn -Oak had to travel to NY(and I assume play a morning game WC time) -I said air travel in '69 is not quite as comfy as today and teams still complain about the EC to WC or WC to EC trips and this is a fact. -The jets did have a creampuff run -I said Houston was mediocre, I said SD wasn't as good as their record(again using your flawed logic) b/c they feasted on bad teams. I don't think I am roasting, it's clear as day. i look forward to the next excuse. Where are the facts that you have proven other than some theories of yours b/c you read a couple of books? The facts back me up as usual.
They lost to the best team in AFL History. SHOCKER! Regardless of whether you are impressed or not the Chargers were a good team in 68 They had the lead with 8 minutes left in the game. It didn’t affect them. Proved. You made the Oilers out to be a terrible team. They weren’t. They were a team that had a good defense and a decent running game. They weren’t as good as the top teams and were beaten 6 times by those teams. It’s not a surprise that a team would lose to a better team. It’s not impossible to think the week off had a negative effect on the Jets. They were out of rhythm and started off slow. You don’t think having a week off wouldn’t affect a team’s rhythm? It seems like it does considering 4 of the last 6 SB winning teams had to play in the WC round. Those are excuses. And now your latest excuse is that they had to play a morning game in WC time? Oak having to play a week before is another excuse because there is no evidence it negatively affected them. Air travel not being comfy is another excuse. Jets “creampuff” run is another excuse. I have provided plenty of evidence that the Oilers were not a bad team and that the Chargers were a good team. My research on the 60’s teams extremely outweigh you looking at standing sheets and box scores. The facts don’t back you up because you don’t even know the facts.
