Robertson, Vilma two big reasons why Jets’ switch to 3-4

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Originally Posted by nyjunc

We didn't need help, we won the games we needed to win and by the way we played the OT at SL after we knew we clinched and I doubt we kick a 53 yd FG to win if we think we needed to win or tie that game. We would have punted and pinned SL deep instead of giving them the ball at midfield.

Every team needs help if they don't go undefeated. The Texans beat the Jags in week 16 while the Jets "were doing what they needed to do" (i.e. losing 3 out of the last 4).

The 2004 Jets were playing an easy schedule because of their poor 2003 season. They beat the mighty Cardinals, Texans, Browns, Bengals, Dolphins (2), Seahawks, 49ers. They only beat one good team all year - SD. They beat them twice.

Originally Posted by nyjunc

The phins were always the "best team in the ;ague" in septemeber and most of the 1st half of the season.

5-1 with a win against Denver on the road and a 30-3 stomping of the Jets and wins against the Pats and Colts. They gave up the fewest points in the AFC in 2002 and had the league's leading rusher. Clearly the play of Ray Lucas cost them big time. 4 Ints against the Bills in week 7 was a killer. It destroyed his confidence and the team's confidence in him.

Originally Posted by nyjunc

We both had suppsoed big time RBs and suppsoed very good Ds. the situations were quite similar.

Different OC, different offensive scheme, 3 years of inactivity, much higher expectations, more pressure. yeah, sure, they were similar.....

[nyjunc]

Every team needs help if they don't go undefeated. The Texans beat the Jags in week 16 while the Jets "were doing what they needed to do" (i.e. losing 3 out of the last 4).

We DID what we needed to do, we won 10 games by Week 15.

The 2004 Jets were playing an easy schedule because of their poor 2003 season.

First off we played the most difficult schedule of any playoff team in 2004, secondly '03 had little to do w/ the sched. Only 2 games are determined by the 2003 finish and the teams we played in 2004 b/c of our 2003 finish were 9-7 Baltimore and at 12-4 San Diego.

5-1 with a win against Denver on the road and a 30-3 stomping of the Jets and wins against the Pats and Colts. They gave up the fewest points in the AFC in 2002 and had the league's leading rusher. Clearly the play of Ray Lucas cost them big time. 4 Ints against the Bills in week 7 was a killer. It destroyed his confidence and the team's confidence in him.

we were beaten up, we lost from week 2-4 by a total of 102-13. Miami ALWAYS started strong and faded late:

'98: started 7-3, finished 3-3
'99: started 7-1, finished 2-6
'00: started 8-2, finished 3-3
'01: started 9-3, finished 2-2
'02: started 5-1, finished 4-6

Different OC, different offensive scheme, 3 years of inactivity, much higher expectations, more pressure. yeah, sure, they were similar.....

3 years of inactivity? he hadn't played QB on a normal basis since he was at Rutgers before he played for us in '99. Both teams had supposed big backs and supposed big defenses but ray managed to succeed w/ us and fail w/ you.

[The New Guy]

No we put ourselves in position by being 10-4, we didn't need to win the last 2 weeks and even if we won both we still would have been the 5 seed and still would have been playing at SD to open the playoffs and still would have gone to Pitt in the div rd.

The Jets did not need to win the last few games of the season? You guys did need to win to insure a playoff spot. The Jags and Bills were on your tail. If the Bills win their last game, or the Jags beat the Texans the week before, the Jets don’t make the playoffs. Saying that the Jets did not need to win because they had already put themselves in position for a playoff spot earlier in the season is not true.

'03's better records had more to do w/ there being more bad teams. There weren't as many bad tams to help beef upr ecords. There were 8 teams in the AFC in '03 w/ 6 or fewere wins compared to just 4 in 2004 and again 3 teams above .500 missed the playoffs in '04 compared to just 1 in '03. The AFC was better in 2004.

You can look at it that way, or you can look at it this way. There were more teams that were better in 03 that caused the records of the other teams to be so poor. When teams are going 14-2, 13-3, and 12-4 there are going to be more teams that have 6 wins or less.



It is interesting to me that you chose 6 games as the meter to separate the good teams from the bad teams. To me, if you win 8 games or less, you are a mediocre team. If you use 8 games as the meter, there is not as much of a gap between the 03 teams and the 04 teams. In 03 there were 9 teams with a record of 8-8 or less, while in 04 there were 7 teams with a record of 8-8 or less. That is only a 22% difference instead of 50%.

Put the 2004 Jets in the 2003 season and we win 11-12 games.

Since the Jets only beat 3 teams with a winning record in 04, I doubt that. In 03 you had to play 9 teams with a winning record and went 6-10.

We didn't need help, we won the games we needed to win and by the way we played the OT at SL after we knew we clinched and I doubt we kick a 53 yd FG to win if we think we needed to win or tie that game. We would have punted and pinned SL deep instead of giving them the ball at midfield.

The Jets did not need help? I don’t think you realize how close the Jets were from being eliminated from the playoff race. The Bills almost beat the Steelers in week 17. If Bledsoe does not get blindsided and fumble the ball in the fourth quarter (which was returned for a TD) the Bills probably win that game. The Jags also had a chance in week 16 to beat the Texans, but the Texans bailed you guys out.

The Rams were 7-8 ,and the Jets played them poorly all day. The Jets played all 4 quarters thinking that they needed to win to make the playoffs. The Jets attempted the field goal because they thought it was their best chance to win the game. I don’t believe that just because they clinched a playoff spot they changed their mind and decided to attempt a field goal. You want to win going into the playoffs, and I think the Jets showed that by keeping Chad Pennington and Curtis Martin on the field in OT. Here are a few quotes from Jets players after the game:

"The feeling would have been a lot better had we won," Ellis said. "Obviously, our mood is kind of like in the middle, so we just have to put this game behind us and get ready for next week."

"I think both teams showed they were playing for something," Jets wide receiver Santana Moss said. "Everybody laid everything on the line."

The bottom line is the Jets backed there way into the playoffs in 04 going 5-6 in their last 11 games. I know you will try, but there is no positive way to spin that.

[nyjunc]

The Jets did not need to win the last few games of the season? You guys did need to win to insure a playoff spot. The Jags and Bills were on your tail. If the Bills win their last game, or the Jags beat the Texans the week before, the Jets don’t make the playoffs. Saying that the Jets did not need to win because they had already put themselves in position for a playoff spot earlier in the season is not true.

if we NEEDED to win we would have missed the playoffs but obviously we didn't NEED it. Even if jax had won in week 16 and was 10-6 I think we make it ahead of them b/c we had less Conf losses. Buf could have kept us out but they lost to Pitt 2nd and 3rd stringers at home and that game was over before our game in SL was over. There;s no doubt in my mind we play OT different if we founbd out buf won b/c all we needed was a tie but we attempted a 53 yd FG w/ a kicker w/ a weak leg and gave SL the ball at midfield.

It is interesting to me that you chose 6 games as the meter to separate the good teams from the bad teams. To me, if you win 8 games or less, you are a mediocre team. If you use 8 games as the meter, there is not as much of a gap between the 03 teams and the 04 teams. In 03 there were 9 teams with a record of 8-8 or less, while in 04 there were 7 teams with a record of 8-8 or less. That is only a 22% difference instead of 50%.

2 less teams in a field of 16 is a big #. Any way you slice it '04 was more competitive than '03.

Since the Jets only beat 3 teams with a winning record in 04, I doubt that. In 03 you had to play 9 teams with a winning record and went 6-10.

and w/ a beat up team that missed it's starting QB for almost half the season we still won 6 and almsot won a few more. Let's not forget that Ten had a 6 game win streak and was the 'experts" SB pick until they came to NY on a Mon Night in Dec and we beat them. If we had our '04 team in '03 we definitely beat Wash, NYG, Dal, Miami at least once- right there that's 10 wins and we lost a couple of other real close games we shouldn't have.

The Jets did not need help? I don’t think you realize how close the Jets were from being eliminated from the playoff race. The Bills almost beat the Steelers in week 17. If Bledsoe does not get blindsided and fumble the ball in the fourth quarter (which was returned for a TD) the Bills probably win that game. The Jags also had a chance in week 16 to beat the Texans, but the Texans bailed you guys out.

We lost a bitter, close game AT Pitt against their top unit while Buf loses at HOME against Pitt 2nd and 3rd stringers. if all things were equal Buf wouldn't have had a chance in that game and again we played OT differently than we would have had Buf won and again Jax would not have beaten us out.

The Rams were 7-8 ,and the Jets played them poorly all day. The Jets played all 4 quarters thinking that they needed to win to make the playoffs. The Jets attempted the field goal because they thought it was their best chance to win the game. I don’t believe that just because they clinched a playoff spot they changed their mind and decided to attempt a field goal. You want to win going into the playoffs, and I think the Jets showed that by keeping Chad Pennington and Curtis Martin on the field in OT. Here are a few quotes from Jets players after the game:

the rams were at home and needed to win to make the playoffs, they were desperate, we were maybe desperate if Buf won. You can't discount that. We only needed a tie, there was not that much time left and kicking the FG was dumb if we needed to win the game. Punting and pinning SL deep in their own territory w/ a few mios left would have been the move had Buf won.


Those quotes are absolutely meaningless.

The bottom line is the Jets backed there way into the playoffs in 04 going 5-6 in their last 11 games. I know you will try, but there is no positive way to spin that.

There's no such thing as backing in, either you win the games you have to and have a better record than other teams or not whether you got the wins in Sept or dec. You don't back in w/ 10 wins. We were 10-4 in 2004, you guys were 8-6 in 2003- that's a huge difference in getting to 10-6.

[The New Guy]

f we NEEDED to win we would have missed the playoffs but obviously we didn't NEED it. Even if jax had won in week 16 and was 10-6 I think we make it ahead of them b/c we had less Conf losses. Buf could have kept us out but they lost to Pitt 2nd and 3rd stringers at home and that game was over before our game in SL was over. There;s no doubt in my mind we play OT different if we founbd out buf won b/c all we needed was a tie but we attempted a 53 yd FG w/ a kicker w/ a weak leg and gave SL the ball at midfield.

I said you needed to win to insure a playoff spot. The Jets made the playoffs only because the Jags and Bills lost. The Jets needed help, and got it via the Steelers and Texans. If the Jags beat the Texans in week 16, they would have had the same amount of conference losses, the same amount of wins in common games, and the same conference record. The tie breaker would have come down to “Strength of Victory” which the Jags would have won since the opponents they beat had a higher winning percentage than the Jets opponents.

Was it not Herm who said “You play to win the game.” “Hello” I am not sure exactly when the Jets knew that they had clinched a playoff spot, but I do know the Rams were giving them trouble all day. I believe the Jets played to win that game and tried to kick a field goal because they thought that it was their best chance to win. It is not the first time Herm has made a bad coaching decision.

2 less teams in a field of 16 is a big #. Any way you slice it '04 was more competitive than '03.

2 teams less in a field of 16 is a small number, especially when the two teams missed the count by one game. If you add Buffolo, Baltimore and Jacksonville at 9-7, there were more average teams in 04 than 03.

If we had our '04 team in '03 we definitely beat Wash, NYG, Dal, Miami at least once- right there that's 10 wins and we lost a couple of other real close games we shouldn't have.

Who knows? Like I said the 04 team only beat 3 teams with a winning record (San Diego, Seattle, and Buffalo.) Besides San Diego two of those three teams considered to have winning records were one game above .500.

the rams were at home and needed to win to make the playoffs, they were desperate, we were maybe desperate if Buf won. You can't discount that. We only needed a tie, there was not that much time left and kicking the FG was dumb if we needed to win the game. Punting and pinning SL deep in their own territory w/ a few mios left would have been the move had Buf won.

You guys did not know Buffalo lost until OT (If even then). I am sure that the Jets probably did know going into OT, but I also know that the Jets played to win that game.

Those quotes are absolutely meaningless.

Are you saying that Santana Moss is lying? The Jets really just let the Rams win? The Jets really wanted to go into the playoffs losing three of their last four?

There's no such thing as backing in, either you win the games you have to and have a better record than other teams or not whether you got the wins in Sept or dec. You don't back in w/ 10 wins. We were 10-4 in 2004, you guys were 8-6 in 2003- that's a huge difference in getting to 10-6.

You only win the games you have to if you clinch a playoff spot earlier in the season, and it does not matter what other teams do because you have already had more wins than they can possibly get. When a team losses 6 of their last 11 games, and needs other teams to lose to make the playoffs, I call that backing into the playoffs.

[nyjunc]

I said you needed to win to insure a playoff spot. The Jets made the playoffs only because the Jags and Bills lost.

It doesn't matter, we won enough ames to get in. Using that logic we can say the Jets "let" those teams hang around in the race- had we beaten Baltimore or Buf earlier they wouldn't have had a chance. The bottom line is we won enough games to earn the top WC spot.

2 teams less in a field of 16 is a small number

That's a HUGE #.

Who knows? Like I said the 04 team only beat 3 teams with a winning record (San Diego, Seattle, and Buffalo.) Besides San Diego two of those three teams considered to have winning records were one game above .500.

We were the ONLY team to beat SD at SD and we did it twice, we only lost badly once all year and we had the toughest sched of any playoff team.

You guys did not know Buffalo lost until OT (If even then). I am sure that the Jets probably did know going into OT, but I also know that the Jets played to win that game.

I didn't say we didn't try, I believe they tried to win the game. My point is in OT if they found out Buf won or had a chance to win I think they punt instead of try for the FG seeing as we only needed to tie to get into the playoffs and there wasn't much time left.

When a team losses 6 of their last 11 games, and needs other teams to lose to make the playoffs, I call that backing into the playoffs.

We earned our spot then beat a 12-4 team on the road again and our Kicker blew it for us the next week or we would have made the title game.

[The New Guy]

It doesn't matter, we won enough ames to get in. Using that logic we can say the Jets "let" those teams hang around in the race- had we beaten Baltimore or Buf earlier they wouldn't have had a chance. The bottom line is we won enough games to earn the top WC spot.

That is a silly logic. I don’t think the Jets just wanted to lose to the other teams just to take it to the last game of the season to clinch a playoff spot. If the Jets could have won more games, they would have. The Jets did win enough games to make the playoffs, but the point is the Jets did not win enough games to make it on their own. The Jets needed the Jags and Bills to lose to make the playoffs. Teams like the Steelers Colts and Patriots did win enough games to make it on their own. They did not need to rely on any other teams losing to get in. The Jets were 5 points away from not making the playoffs in week 17.

That's a HUGE #.

Maybe to you it is, but I have a different opinion; especially when those two teams missed the count by one game. Like I said, if you add Buffalo, Baltimore and Jacksonville at 9-7, there were more average teams in 04 than 03.

We were the ONLY team to beat SD at SD and we did it twice, we only lost badly once all year and we had the toughest sched of any playoff team.

The Colts and a couple of other playoff teams had a similar schedule, so the Jets were not the only playoff team with a tough schedule. It really does not matter how hard the schedule was anyway because the Jets only beat three teams that had a winning record. 7 of the Jets 10 wins came against bad teams that had a combined record of 65-93.


As for beating SD in SD. Besides Denver, the Jets were the only decent team to play SD in SD. SD had a great home record because they played some pretty bad teams at home. 6 out of the 8 home games were played against teams that were .500 or below.

We earned our spot then beat a 12-4 team on the road again and our Kicker blew it for us the next week or we would have made the title game.

I never said the Jets did not play well once they got in, I just said that they backed their way into the playoffs. You did play well in the playoffs, but the Chargers had a kicker problem as well. If the chargers kicker makes the 40 yard kick in OT you don’t get to play the Steelers.

[nyjunc]

That is a silly logic. I don’t think the Jets just wanted to lose to the other teams just to take it to the last game of the season to clinch a playoff spot. If the Jets could have won more games, they would have.

I NEVER said they didn't try to win, I said they played OT differently b/c they knew they were in. The players still tried to win but the call was a different one made than what would have been called if Buf had a chance to win.

They did not need to rely on any other teams losing to get in. The Jets were 5 points away from not making the playoffs in week 17.

Again saying we relied on Buf to lose you can say they relied on us to lose earlier in the year so they'd have a chance. For the millionth time we won the games we had to win, that's all- we made it in.

Maybe to you it is, but I have a different opinion; especially when those two teams missed the count by one game. Like I said, if you add Buffalo, Baltimore and Jacksonville at 9-7, there were more average teams in 04 than 03.

There were still dominant teams like NE and Pitt but the bottom rung was out, there were alot more competitive teams. Rather than 3-4 10 win teams there were more at or above .500 and alot less horrible teams under 6 wins. There is not a doubt in my mind had we played in '03 w/ the '04 team we would have made the playoffs. We BEAT Tennessee, baltimore was just the bst of a horrible division, Denver was a joke and Indy was Indy.

The Colts and a couple of other playoff teams had a similar schedule, so the Jets were not the only playoff team with a tough schedule.

I didn't say we were the ONLY playoff team w/ a tough sched I said we had the TOUGHEST sche dof all playoff teams.

As for beating SD in SD. Besides Denver, the Jets were the only decent team to play SD in SD.

They beat Jax & den who were good teams. You play the teams on your sched. The '72 Phins played by far the easiest sched of any SB Champion yet you guys always say that didn't matter but now it does? SD was a touhg team and lost 4 reg season games all year. They split w/ Den, swept KC, beat Jax and very nearly beat Indy at Indy where Indy had only lost once at home(to the same jags team SD beat).

I never said the Jets did not play well once they got in, I just said that they backed their way into the playoffs. You did play well in the playoffs, but the Chargers had a kicker problem as well. If the chargers kicker makes the 40 yard kick in OT you don’t get to play the Steelers.

If our kicker makes a 30 yarder early in the game or if our LB doesn't get a boneheaded penalty we never play OT. The better team won that night just like the better team won a week later even though we had plenty of chances to win.

[The New Guy]

The players still tried to win but the call was a different one made than what would have been called if Buf had a chance to win.

I do not think that is true. I believe that the Jets kicked the field goal because they thought it was their best chance to win the game. There were over 5:00 minutes left in OT when the Jets attempted the field goal, so if they would have punted, St. Louis would have had plenty of time to get in field goal range. I am not saying it was a good coaching decision, but it was not the first bad coaching decision from Herm that season. The games against Baltimore and Buffalo come to mind. As a Jets fan, you should know that Herm has been a bad game manager in his entire tenure with the Jets.

Again saying we relied on Buf to lose you can say they relied on us to lose earlier in the year so they'd have a chance. For the millionth time we won the games we had to win, that's all- we made it in.

Yes, you are correct. Buffalo (who went 9-7) had to rely on the Jets losing to have a chance to make the playoffs. My point was great teams do not.

There were still dominant teams like NE and Pitt but the bottom rung was out, there were a lot more competitive teams. Rather than 3-4 10 win teams there were more at or above .500 and alot less horrible teams under 6 wins. There is not a doubt in my mind had we played in '03 w/ the '04 team we would have made the playoffs.

I have often wondered how present teams would do in the past or vice versa, but the truth is no one will ever know. You may think that the 04 Jets would have made the playoffs in 03, but there are many reasons to doubt it. My opinion is that the AFC was better in 03 than in 04. In 03 there were 8 teams that won 10 games or more. In 04 there were 6. There is that HUGE 2 team difference like you said before.

They beat Jax & den who were good teams. You play the teams on your sched. The '72 Phins played by far the easiest sched of any SB Champion yet you guys always say that didn't matter but now it does? SD was a touhg team and lost 4 reg season games all year. They split w/ Den, swept KC, beat Jax and very nearly beat Indy at Indy where Indy had only lost once at home(to the same jags team SD beat)

I mentioned Denver, but I don’t think the Jags were a very strong team. You do play the games on the schedule, but the reason SD was so strong at home was because they played bad teams at home. I don’t think SD was as good as their 12-4 record showed. Besides SD what were the other great teams the Jets beat in 04?

If our kicker makes a 30 yarder early in the game or if our LB doesn't get a boneheaded penalty we never play OT. The better team won that night just like the better team won a week later even though we had plenty of chances to win.

I agree. You were the one who started the “If” game. I just decided to join in and try it with the Chargers.

[nyjunc]

I do not think that is true. I believe that the Jets kicked the field goal because they thought it was their best chance to win the game. There were over 5:00 minutes left in OT when the Jets attempted the field goal, so if they would have punted, St. Louis would have had plenty of time to get in field goal range. I am not saying it was a good coaching decision, but it was not the first bad coaching decision from Herm that season. The games against Baltimore and Buffalo come to mind. As a Jets fan, you should know that Herm has been a bad game manager in his entire tenure with the Jets.

I believe they would ahve done things different. Brien was unreliable the 2nd half of that season and did not have a leg for a 53 yarder- he basically had no chance to make it and you almost put SL in FG range to win it. They punt and put SL inside their 20 and make them go alot longer for the FG and take up alot of time- if we tie we still get in.

Yes, you are correct. Buffalo (who went 9-7) had to rely on the Jets losing to have a chance to make the playoffs. My point was great teams do not.

When did I call the Jets great? Great teams win Championships, obviously they weren't great.

I have often wondered how present teams would do in the past or vice versa, but the truth is no one will ever know. You may think that the 04 Jets would have made the playoffs in 03, but there are many reasons to doubt it. My opinion is that the AFC was better in 03 than in 04. In 03 there were 8 teams that won 10 games or more. In 04 there were 6. There is that HUGE 2 team difference like you said before.

My opinion is the AFC was better overall in 2004 b/c there were less bad teams for the top teams to feed on. You still had 2 big time teams in Pitt and Ne then you had very good teams make the playoffs w/ them but none had the luxury of the amount of bad teams we saw in 2003 to fatten records.

[The New Guy]

I believe they would ahve done things different. Brien was unreliable the 2nd half of that season and did not have a leg for a 53 yarder- he basically had no chance to make it and you almost put SL in FG range to win it. They punt and put SL inside their 20 and make them go alot longer for the FG and take up alot of time- if we tie we still get in.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I know it was bad decision to kick the field goal in that situation, but I have seen Herm make too many other bad decisions to think he would have done anything different. In Edwards defense, Brien was 3 for 3 before that OT kick including a 47-yard field goal in the first quarter.

When did I call the Jets great? Great teams win Championships, obviously they weren't great

You didn’t. You said that the Jets did not need to win their last few games to make the playoffs. I should have said teams that don’t need to win their last few games of the season, do not have to rely on what other teams do. I was just trying to point out that the Jets did need to win to insure a playoff spot. The Jets did make the playoffs despite going 5-6 in their last 11 games, but only because the Bills and Jags lost. There is a big difference of making it in the last week of the season and clinching a playoff spot earlier in the season because you had such a good record. The Steelers are a good example of this in the 2004 season. They did not need to win their last few games because they already clinched a spot earlier in the season. That is why they were playing 2nd and 3rd stringers against Buffalo. It did not matter what any other team did, they already clinched. That was not the case with the 2004 Jets. It did matter what other teams did.