The Jets having a history of mediocrity means that mediocre is acceptable? Who was the last Jet coach to have three non-playoff seasons in a row?
We were better this year with a rookie QB, bottom line, 7-9 or 8-8 is better than 6-10. We beat 2 top tier teams this year. We haven't beat one since 2010 with the exception of the Colts last year, who were decimated by injuries at the time and we just ran all over them. As much as it may pain you, the trend it going back up. We are a team of the future.
Well clearly you dont pay attention to the NFL, because he was in fact injured. http://www.sbnation.com/fantasy/2013/11/4/5062638/jimmy-graham-fantasy-football-saints-vs-jets-recap Holy shit, so of you people are so damn ignorant.
who cares? did he play? did he perform? that is all that matters. we had key injuries too, why does it only count for opponents? take a look in the mirror w/ regards to ignorance.
If you don't think luck plays a large part in a 16 game NFL season, especially when so many of the teams are close talent wise, I don't know what to tell you. Ask the Giants about luck, they should've missed the playoffs in 2011 by a couple games, instead they sneak in and ride a hot defense to a SB. Not surprisingly they haven't made the playoffs in any of the other years in the last 5 because they aren't and haven't been a good football team. The point is when you're missing the playoffs anyway winning an extra game or two here and there does nothing to indicate future success. Kansas City won 2 games last year and no one would be shocked if Atlanta and Houston returned to double digit wins next year.
Jimmy Graham has been on questionable status for most of the season. It doesn't mean he's actually limited in the games. He has played well all year with the same status. Funny how against the Jets that suddenly discounts a quality win, while our own injuries are completely ignored :lol: Yeah, Graham was SOOOO limited that he scored twice.
Yes luck exists, but entire games aren't defined by 1 play. It's a complete logical fail to assume this.
You are the poster boy of what is wrong with this fanbase. If you were walking down the street and found a bag of 20's, you would be bitching that it wasn't a bag of 50's.
Lol, you said it yourself, we have only beaten 3 teams with winning records in 3 years. That is not "overachieving". We beat a pretty decimated Saints team and just barely beat the Pats. They were great wins, I loved them. But dont let that fool you into thinking that this team is significantly improved from last year. The Browns beat Cinci, who destroyed us. Any team can win on any Sunday (or Monday or Thursday).
It doesnt discount a quality win, it is what it is. The Saints didnt have Colston or Sproles, and they had Jimmy Graham on a pitch count. Its fact. And please stop with this bull shit. Jimmy Graham was clearly limited. You are an ignorant clown if you make yourself think otherwise.
The fail is to try to equate a mistake or bad call in the first quarter where you have the entire rest of the game to make up for it and one that occurs at the end of the game where you have no opportunity to overcome it.
you have to go back to Walt Michaels in the late 1970s.. Bruce Coslet technically had 3 straight non-winning seasons after him, but the one 8-8 season was a playoff appearance. He was fired. edit - I was wrong about Joe Walton.
Who cares? You fucking tried to put down a poster for stating the TRUTH. Jimmy Graham was on a pitch count. You can not try and argue your way around it. It doesnt discount a win, but it sure as hell is the truth.
Im so torn, I want to beat Miami, but I no longer want Rex here. Hopefully we can beat the dolphins and hand Rex his walking papers.
Of course you have the opportunity to make up for it, but a flag that leads to a TD, is a flag that leads to a TD. You wouldn't have to overcome that if you didn't let it happen in the first place. Every play like that effects the final outcome. To deny that is to deny reality. Every flag matters, not just the last one.
The point was that it didn't matter. We had limited important players and injuries as well. They still had Drew Brees playing, which is more talent than our entire offense put together.
You can't look at a disputed first quarter TD and say "Well, the team lost by 4 points so without that play they would've won!" There's no telling how the rest of the game would've played out from that point. When you have a play at the end of the game that is definitively the difference between winning and losing you can absolutely say that was either a lucky win or an unlucky loss.
I'm assuming you actually watched the game? Graham was clearly limited, he came out several times limping. He also had 2 TD's against the Bill the week before on 3 catches for 37 yards. Graham hobbled with no Colston and Sproules was the only serious weapon for Breese a great QB with limited options. We won, it was a great effort yet the Saints are still a below 500 team on the road and they were more limited then usual against us. Good win. That doesn't change the fact that the losses against the Bills and Dolphins were absolute crappy efforts against division opponents in games that actually counted for something. Who was discounted a quality win? You made the outright stupid comment that the Jets have over performed based on a very limited sample size. Based on an entire season the Jets have sucked at times been good at times and mediocre at times. There is nothing that screams outperformed the talent, well coached, great adjustments. The Jets in 2013 will be a 500 team or below 500 team. Mediocre in a league filled with mediocre. You have a reasonable argument on Rex but your sarcasm doesn't add to it when your wrong. Laughing your ass off when your heads up your ass is like a tree failing in the forest.
I am tired of the Jets being mediocre. You are not. I think it is YOU who are wrong. Not me. Your metaphor is off the point. Rooting for a team that has lost 21 of their last 34 games is not what should be analogized to finding a bag of money on the street, whether it is 20's or 50's. That you would think that an appropriate metaphor says far more about you having a loser mentality. Anyway, I am not bitching. I am merely expressing my opinion on a message board. If you don't like my opinion, too bad. I don't think much of yours, either.
