Hi Neid. I am looking forward to what you have. How did everything go? any good stories? My argument was strong, I am dealing w/ facts. I appreciate what those guys did bringing us our only Championship and I think they are a little underrated all time but the facts I presented are not changed. They didn't have to go to Oakland and only had to win 1 game to get to the SB. That is relevant to the point about backing in how? Where did I argue the '68 Jets backed in?
Saying a team had an easier road is different than saying they backed into the playoffs. It's just like the Celtics of the 60s and all their championships, they only had to win two rounds every year, that's why they won so many times. It's simple math, the more rounds you have to go through the less likely it is you will go through them all. To me that's a different argument than saying a team lost their last regular season games they ended up not needing and "backed in", totally different discussion. Nobody is saying the 68 Jets "backed in", to me there is no such thing, but you can't deny they had an easier road than the 2002 or 1998 Jets that also won the east. Both of those latter teams also won a home game in the first round, but that doesn't advance you to the Super Bowl anymore.
I don't have anything against abyzmul but he apparently doesn't like me as he keeps questioning all my posts. I don't get it, it's petty clear to see and obviously you understood what I was posting.
As far as I see it, arguing that a 'silly rule' was the reason they had an easy path to SBIII is just as bad as someone arguing that the Jets required other teams to lose in order for Herm's team to win a playoff berth. Both teams won the games they needed to in order to get where they did. It's the same argument. The other factors were out of their control, in the case of both teams. BTW, if I was questioning all of your posts, I'd be on here all day long. I don't dislike you, but your favor of Herm's regime over a team that had such a huge impact on the direction of the league, in addition to basically being our only true bragging rights as Jets fans, dumbfounds me sometimes, junc.
It's not, really. Herm's team got where they got based on performance-based tie-breakers and criteria. The Jets home field in 1968 wasn't based on performance, if it was the game would have been in Oakland. That's much more a case of catching a break than the 2004 team.
I don't think either of them caught a break, and I'm not arguing that Herm backed into the playoffs. That team won the games they needed to in order to advance. The Jets 'catching a lucky break' had no control of what happened, they won the games they needed to and advanced, it was entirely performance-based. You can play what-if games all day long about who would have won that game against the Raiders out west, but in the end it is entirely speculation. Just like 'What if we didn't take a knee agaist the Steelers'? Academic.
As far as YOU see it but that's not what I was saying. it's not the same argument, others argued we "backed in" when we didn't back in. I never said we backed into a SB I simply stated a fact they had an easy road b/c they only needed to win 1 game. As far as the Herm arguments go, you throw out recycled incorrect info from this site and other places. You don't have anything to back up those silly claims and when I ask you to you start making excuses.
I make excuses and you avoid direct questions and choose the arguments you like, it's basically the same thing on this board. As far as what you did versus what wb did, it had the same motive behind it, both were trying to diminish accomplishments of the team in question.
I’m a Herm supporter and I thought he did a great job here. But, I do agree that we backed into the playoffs. I understand that at the end of the day we were able to get enough wins to get into the playoffs. The issue is that we left each of those opportunities to fate. • In 2001 we had our destiny in our own hands and lost to a Bills team at home. That was a game in which we definitely should not have lost. Then we needed to go to Oakland and get a miracle FG from John Hall to get into the playoffs. • In 2002 we lost to a Chicago Bears team that finished the season 4-12 down the stretch. We needed a collapse by Miami to get into the playoffs. Luckily they had Dave Wannstedt coaching them. • In 2004 we lost against the 7-8 St. Louis Rams team. We were the far superior team in that game. Luckily the Bills lost at home to the Steelers or we wouldn’t have made it in 04. Every time it seemed like we controlled our own destiny Herm’s teams failed. That’s where all of the backed into the playoffs come from. I understand the point that we ended up with enough victories to get into the playoffs. Like I said, I thought Herm did a good job while he was here. It was just very frustrating knowing that we controlled our own destiny and yet we kept leaving it up to chance. That’s what made the end of the 2006 season so exciting when our playoffs chances were left in our hands and we won to get in.
You back up your arguments with your opinion and you try to pass it off as 'injecting a dose of reality'.
I have to disagree here. Even if you buy into the concept of "backing in", I don't see how you can make a case for 2001 or 2002. By your logic any team that loses a game in December backed in, I disagree. In 2001 they had to win at Oakland where they hadn't won in 40 years, against a top team, and they did it. In 2002 they rallied from a 2-5 start, won at NE vs big bad Belichick and the Pats, then beat a 12-3 Brett Favre Packer team to get in. Certainly not "backing in". The only case you might have is 2004 and even that is spotty because the Jets knew the outcome of the Buffalo-Pittsburgh game going into the OT of our last game vs the Rams and played it accordingly.
We still had destiny in our hands when we BEAT Oakland for our first win EVER in Oakland as the Jets. In '02 we bounced back and beat up NE and GB. In '00 we lost to a bad Lions team at home then followed that up w/ another loss. Th '04 game SL was playing for a playoff spot, we lost but did enough to make the postseason. How did we fail when 2 of the 3 times we won the final game? Failing was '00 when we lost to detrout then Bal, failing was '97 losing to Indy at home in Dec then losing at Det the final game.
You had to win your division 1 of 2 outright to get into the playoffs not 1 of 4 with 2 wildcards. That's a 1 in 5 chance 20% to get into the tournment. The Jets that made the playoffs in this decade had a 3 in 8 vs 1 in 5 chance 37.5% vs 20% chance to get into the playoffs. The Jets got a buy in 2002 in a tie for the 7th best record in the AFC that year. If you had two confrences instead of 4 and took 2 teams from each confrence the Jets don't make the playoffs that year because Cleveland with the same record that didn't make the playoffs that year beat us head to head. The Jets teams that got into the playoffs this decade were never a top two or three team and would never have made the tournement in the old days. How is it a tougher road today than it was than if we couldn't get in than with a realitively mediocre team? That doesn't even account for the more watered down product which means facing less good teams during the year. It may be harder to win 2 or 3 games instead of 1 but it sure is a lot easier to get into the tournement which is why with all are chances we never win the tournement because you don't have to be good to get into it. Now add in the schedule in a more watered down league which ensures at least one or two teams has a schedule that favors it unlike in the past when you played the league.
They had to beat out 4 other teams and not one of those 4 teams had a winning record compare that to 2002 when 3 of the 4 teasm had winning records and the last place team was at .500.
That's the way that season played out. The Jets played teams with an over all 500 record and got to 11 in a 14 game season. The 02 Jets facing a 500 season by the opposition got to 10 in 16 games and got in the tournement with a convoluted tie breaker system. The 68 Jets against the same strength of schedule blew their confrence out. One team dominated the other was an in the pack team that got into the playoffs on a convulted tie breaker system.
They played 8 division games in '68 against teams w/ .500 or worse records. In '02 the Jets played 6 division games and all 6 were at or above .500.
All 3 teams compiled their records against opposition that had a 500 record at the end of the year. You could well make the argument that the only reason there were 3 teams with 1 game over 500 in the AFC East in 02 is because all 3 of them played the NFC Central which sucked that year. The only team in that division with a winning record was the Packers and we happened to play them in a game that didn't matter to them.
The game didn't matter to them? Yeah they were only playing for the top seed and homefield advantage throughout but they had nothing to play for.hmy:
They got destroyed by a crappy Atlanta team at home in the playoffs. Everyone knows that Packer team sucked and compiled their record against the same crappy teams the Dolphins, Pats and Jets compiled their 9 & 7 records against.
