We have won 3 of 4

Do you not like their position because you think Cincy will go 5-2 the rest of the way and hold the better conference record? They have to play Baltimore twice and Pitt once more. I think we should revisit this in 3 weeks, its still very early.

 

no one is happy but not everyone has given up on the season after a bad loss.

This is a constant theme with this board and this team. Yes, they look like complete shit for a game or a stretch (sometimes two) every single year since Rex has been here (and in some cases predating that). But at the same time, they've PROVED they're a resilient team.

Is is maddening and frustrating? Absolutely, but to deem us dead and buried is absolutely retarded.

Some of the threads and posts here since last night are almost verbatim of 2009 during our losing streak (most notably the falcons game) and last year after the pats/dolphins losses.

Now, how distant of a memory was that when we were on the goal line at pittsburgh prior to a horrible play call by schotty? Or when we were up on indy before strickland and lowery got hurt?

In both those years, it seemed like the season was over after those low points or we were gonna be completely screwed. This is just another type of those situations. It's clearly a pattern, and i think the OP is just trying to put things into perspective

 

They run the ball well (actually 4th in the league at 5.1 ypa) ... and we defend it well ... 8th in the league currently, after a terrible start. And that's playing against teams when we actually had to be concerned about the pass. If we stack the box and take away, or just slow down the only thing they do well they're going to be in trouble.

I don't care if we play them on the moon. I don't see a Rex Ryan defense being beaten by a one dimensional offense.

 

So basically the whole point of your rant is that we don't have a dynasty or once a decade historically dominant team?

Great, that means we're part of the other 30-31 teams in the league that share the same trait.

How do you explain being a few plays away from going to the superbowl the last two years, if you're so infatuated with the history of things?

It's not like we had no chance in either of those games. So yeah, we're not following the ideal blueprint in the regular season, but to assume this team has no shot is clearly ignoring the evidence that has been right in front of your eyes the previous two seasons.

The beautiful thing about the NFL, is that there IS no locks. You play one bad game and your season is over. That's why it's so different than basketball or baseball where dynasties are much more prevalent.

so, yes...lets whine about how we're not the 1980s Niners and not root for the team and hope we can show the same resiliency we've displayed the past two years.

 

Moreno and Mcgahee are hurt.

Moreno has been ruled outand Mcgahee has a hamstring injury. we all know how the hamstrings can be in terms of a nagging injury.

so their rushing attack is tim tebow and lance ball. Those numbers mean absolutely nothing at this point.

 

...your point would be valid after the Raider loss, this was the Fuckin Patriots in our building, can't say it is just another loss, only way they make up for this is either go further
than Pats in playoffs or beat them again like last season!

 

Moreno is out for the season with an ACL injury. He was averaging 4 rushes a game so far. He had 179 of the Broncos 1,424 yards rushing. McGahee is listed today as probable for the game although that could change at any point.

It's kind of ancient history at this point but NcGahee used to slay the Jets on a regular basis when he was with Buffalo. He has history with us so to speak.

 

Hope.

That's exactly how to "make shit happen"...

 

yes, the point is Super Bowl absolutely, and the history of Super Bowls show that the winner is almost always either a team with a single dominating season like the Rams (who weren't good up to that point) or Buccaneers in which they were one of the top teams in the league, or teams who have been at the top of the league for long stretches of time.

I'm not minimizing the importance of making the playoffs, of course you have to make it to have a chance. but the reality is that the teams that win the Super Bowl and thus "win the playoffs" aren't teams that just scrape by by the skin of their teeth and just get hot at the right time, so to depend on that possibility is simply ludicrous. The teams that win the Super Bowl are generaly top seeded teams or teams that have been top seeded in playoffs past and simply may have had an off season that season, like the way the Colts and Steelers did.

The Jets are neither.

 

2 out of the last 4 = 2 out of the last 20 (or 3 out of 20 if you count the Ravens). which means they are the exception, not the rule. I don't know why you would post things that actually defend my argument but I appreciate it.

again, try to grasp a very basic argument. I didn't say it was easy to determine which exact team will win, I said it is easy to determine which type of team will win -- a team that is either one of the most dominating teams for just that season, or a team with multiple seasons of dominating success that finally wins it all or wins multiple championships. either way, the Jets don't fall into either of those categories.

the Packers and Giants are exceptions.

the idea that every team that makes the playoffs has a shot is meaningless. of course you have to make the playoffs to have a shot, but after that you have to look at the results of playoffs to determine whether it is a realistic shot. you're hung up on the assertion that anything is possible if you think you just have to make it to have a shot. sure, anything is possible. it is possible that the Jets go undefeated the next ten seasons. but not probable, because the history of the playoffs show that most teams that make the playoffs don't even sniff the Super Bowl because they aren't good enough. Great teams win Super Bowls, and not every team that makes the playoffs are great.

the history of Super Bowls reveal that the level of success the Jets have shown capable during the regular season isn't indicative of teams that win Super Bowls.

but you stick with the anything is possible position, the "being in the playoffs means you have as much a viable chance to win as every other team" argument while the hundreds of teams who had moderate season success and never ascended to a championship level say hi. yes, okay, it is possible any team that makes the playoffs will win, just that it is possible that the Jets never lose another game in the history of the franchise. if that doesn't reveal how f'ing stupid basing your argument around possibility rather than probability is, I can't help you.

 

The stretch will be like winning the special olympics as a normal person. We better win in a damn impressive fashion.

 

no, the best teams in the league nearly almost always win it. the bottom teams rarely do.

that's as asinine as saying the Browns have a chance to make the playoffs this year just because they are in the NFL. it has nothing to do with opportunity, it has to do with likelihood.

I think you mean "you're" so fucking stupid, and it certainly applies to you. clearly you are incapable of any sort of analytical thought, otherwise you would see that the history of the playoffs actually dispute your assertion, because winning the Super Bowl can be shown to be greatly influenced by records, so they aren't meaningless. the idea that all teams in the playoffs are equal, thus their records previously are meaningless, is really f'ing stupid.

and when it isn't directly correlated to that season's record, you can see significant and dominant success in surrounding seasons, indicating a championship level of play over a stretch of time, as I have said previously but which seems too complicated for you to grasp.

The Patriots are the rare occurrence where their success proceeded their league dominance, but you have to have a serious brain injury to attempt to claim that first Super Bowl wasn't indicative of a larger stretch of championship caliber play, much like Green Bay may be doing now.

 

Im not destroyed over the loss. Im disappointed. I didn't think we matched up well with ne because we get no pass rush at all. so im not shocked we lost. Im frustrated because even with that said it was a winnable game, we made lots of errors elite teams shouldn't make. the playoffs are going to be tough this year being so many sub par teams have good records. We weren't suppose to be sub par this season. i agree losing to the patriots doesn't compare to losing to Denver. But you have to be honest and say were not an elite team.
Im positive about the season and feel we can make the playoffs, but i was hoping for something more out of this years team, no pass rush, no woody and bringing in new receivers has set the team back. You cant deny that, in addition Eric smith is terrible, I wish we never traded Lowery and could use him at safety and Wayne hunter is the worst starting tackle in football.
Everyone talked about the blue print to beat NE, well nfl teams have a Blue Print to beat the jets. Blow up hunter on every play. and on offense attack Eric Smith. very annoying..So if something doesn't change were not going to go far in the playoffs even if we back in.

 

your poor, simple mind. one, I didn't compare our shot with the Browns. I used the basic dynamic of your argument and applied it to the Browns -- that's what logic allows you to do. the fact that you seem off put by my assertion about the Browns means you probably don't agree, and if you don't agree you have just stated the dynamic of your own argument is fucked. well done.

I'm not sure if you are so stupid that you can't see correlation of records of Super bowl winners or at this point you are just so dug deep in your position that you are willing to continue to embarrass yourself by defending an argument that historical facts dispute.

records don't mean you are unbeatable. the 15-1 Vikings lost in the playoffs, but they lost to a 13-3 Falcons team that had a dominant season, who then lost to a 14-2 Broncos team. 15 wins didn't make the Vikings unbeatable, and 13 wins didn't make the Falcons unbeatable, but at the end of the day a 14 win team won the Super Bowl.

This isn't hard. just go look at the records of Super Bowl Champions, and also look at those teams records in a 6 year period around their Super Bowl. you will see a consistent pattern of dominating play and records. it is as simple as that.

the idea that you would attempt to dispute that by saying teams with good records lose in the playoffs is beyond fucking asinine because it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that teams with above average records rarely win the Super Bowl, and even when they do (Colts, Steelers, Pats) those teams have a proven history where those records were an exception to a stretch of seasons with higher amounts of victories.

you can't blame that lack of ability to formulate a logical argument on your phone.

 

Since when do you have to be a dominate team in the regular season to win the Super Bowl? How did that work out for the Patriots and Falcons last year? or the 06 Chargers and Ravens? or the 05 Colts? the list goes on and on....

We have a strong team if we put our heads into it. And anyone who doesnt think we could beat the Pats is delusional...we can most certainly KO them in the playoffs again. The Steelers and Ravens arent dominate teams either, I think we can beat all of them. They dont put chills through your spine look the Colts did 2 years ago.