Rex Ryan Looks Depleted...

[The New Guy]

How can you say anything other than a SB win is not a success then tell me there are levels? I agree there are levels, I don't agree that the only way you can have success is to win the SB. i think for a team like NE only the SB is a success, for us going into last yar only getting to a SB or winning it would be a success- a 3rd title game loss would not have been a success last year. I think it depends on the team and circumstances, after winning a SB going 3 years w/o a playoff win is not a success.

I said anything less than a SB win is not considered a successful season. I don't think NE would consider their 07 season a success, but that doesn't mean that there was not a degree of success during that season. The Jets made the AFCCG in 09, so why do you consider the 10 season a success (another AFCCG loss) but then say anything less than a SB app in 11 was not a success? I would think that you would apply that standard to the 10 season as well. You like to say that the Jets were successful 2 out of the last 3 seasons, but if you go by your own standard you just stated, they were not successful 2 out of 3 seasons.

I agree that there are other levels of success, but no one else cares about them other than the fans of that particular team. You are determining what you consider to be successful based on how a team performed the year before. I know that some teams have higher expectations than others. I'm sure the Giants would not consider those 3 years successful, but that doesn't mean there was not a degree of success during that time.

 

[JETSJETSJETS]

You can't just scroll through the 2,500 pages we've already used up talking about this? Why add to it?

We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

 

[JETSJETSJETS]

I said anything less than a SB win is not considered a successful season. I don't think NE would consider their 07 season a success, but that doesn't mean that there was not a degree of success during that season. The Jets made the AFCCG in 09, so why do you consider the 10 season a success (another AFCCG loss) but then say anything less than a SB app in 11 was not a success? I would think that you would apply that standard to the 10 season as well. You like to say that the Jets were successful 2 out of the last 3 seasons, but if you go by your own standard you just stated, they were not successful 2 out of 3 seasons.

I agree that there are other levels of success, but no one else cares about them other than the fans of that particular team. You are determining what you consider to be successful based on how a team performed the year before. I know that some teams have higher expectations than others. I'm sure the Giants would not consider those 3 years successful, but that doesn't mean there was not a degree of success during that time.

IMO, a successful season is where a team meets or exceeds expectation. Whereas SB is the goal, its not the expectation for every team. You are mixing goals with expectations. Goals are ALWAYS set higher than expectations. Colts are not expected to win 10 games. I think they'll win 6 unless Luck lights it up. Now if Colts win 11 games and win a wild card game and lose the next, their season was a successful season...why? Cuz they are in a rebuilding process, just like the Jets were in 2009 with rookie QB, rookie HC and rookie RB. Patriots are strong contenders from the SB. If they don't win the SB, it becomes an unsuccessful season for them simply because their expectations are already set at SB victory.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Not to me or most people.

Another 100% opinion with some irrationality mixed in. Who are these 'most' people?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

I'm not talking about those games. I'm not biased against any team. I've given the Jets FULL credit for getting to the AFCCG in 2009 and 2010. I'd love for the Dolphins to have done the same. I would've loved the Dolphins going to the SB 4 times like Buffalo did too. As a 31 yr old fan, I have no clue what the glory days for this team was like. All I've really ever known is heartbreak.

If the Jets were elite in my opinion I'd call them elite. There is no bias here. I could give two ****s about the Giants but they're now elite to me.

 

[DuderinoN703]

How can you say anything other than a SB win is not a success then tell me there are levels? I agree there are levels, I don't agree that the only way you can have success is to win the SB. i think for a team like NE only the SB is a success, for us going into last yar only getting to a SB or winning it would be a success- a 3rd title game loss would not have been a success last year. I think it depends on the team and circumstances, after winning a SB going 3 years w/o a playoff win is not a success.

Expectations are a tricky thing. On one hand you have a SB champ that is expected to make the playoffs the following year and make noise. On the other hand, you have an up and coming team that people are picking as a darkhorse or even SB favorite.

How can there be both sides of it? There are different levels of measured success. The Dolphins going 8-8 or 9-7 this year would be a success seeing as how they are 7-9, 7-9, and 6-10 the last three years. The Packers could go 11-5 which is down from last year but can/will be considered a success.

If you improve on your record from either last year or the last few years that is successful to me. Having a winning pct of .625 in three years in between Super Bowl WINS is a success to me.

I'll go even further. If half your team gets injured and still manages to finish at 8-8 or better even with missing the playoffs, that's a success. There are multiple variables that exist in this topic like many other topics we discuss.

 

[The New Guy]

We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

No, I've been talking about how it changes the game for both sides. The 6 points from the FGs is not the only thing that could have changed in SD's favor. You assume it would still have been a 17 - 13 lead for the Jets when SD got the ball back with 3:36 left, but if the game changes, it changes for both sides. Your opinion is that the Jets don't go into prevent and stop SD from scoring, and mine is that SD doesn't turn the ball over up 7 late in the 3rd. Both logical assumptions. No one knows what really would have happened and you are obviously going to have a different take on it (as an admitted bias Jets fan) than I am. I'm not going to change your opinion, and you are not going to change mine. There is no point in discussing it any further.

IMO, a successful season is where a team meets or exceeds expectation. Whereas SB is the goal, its not the expectation for every team. You are mixing goals with expectations. Goals are ALWAYS set higher than expectations. Colts are not expected to win 10 games. I think they'll win 6 unless Luck lights it up. Now if Colts win 11 games and win a wild card game and lose the next, their season was a successful season...why? Cuz they are in a rebuilding process, just like the Jets were in 2009 with rookie QB, rookie HC and rookie RB. Patriots are strong contenders from the SB. If they don't win the SB, it becomes an unsuccessful season for them simply because their expectations are already set at SB victory.

I pretty much agree with that. I think the actual NFL players expectations are always going to be higher than the fans. I don't think the Dolphins players expected to be 6-10 last year while a lot of the fans did. The Packers won 10 regular season games and won the SB in 2010. They won 15 regular season games in 2011 but lost in their first playoff game in 2011. Obviously for the Packers fans and players, that season would not be considered a success, but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't view that 2011 season (where they only lost 1 regular season game) as a success. There are different levels of success and individuals will have different views of what that is. That is why I have always defended "Phinz" on his view. If the Giants went 4-12, 6-10, and 5-11, that would be a different story. But I don't think it is unreasonable for Phinz to consider the Giants winning 30 games in 3 seasons between SB wins as successful.

 

[Kinzua]

Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

I agree with this. Eli has been streaky virtually his entire pro career until last seaon when he literally carried the Giants most of the season while the defense and running game struggled. It was only at the very end of the season that the Giants got their collective act together to put on a good run to the SB. If Eli can repeat his 2011 seasonal performance in 2012, then he's bonafide "elite" in my book whether the Giants make the playoffs in 2012 or not (they almost didn't in 2011).

 

[Kinzua]

If an AFCCG loss can be considered a success, then I don't understand how winning 12 games and losing a Div playoff game can't be another form of it. Winning the Super Bowl is the #1 goal for every team.

Because it wasn't the Jets. Teams that win 12 or 13 games a year are usually pretenders. It's back-to-back AFCCG losses after 9 and 11 win seasons that make the Jests "elite".

// sarcasm off

 

[nyjunc]

Another 100% opinion with some irrationality mixed in. Who are these 'most' people?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------



I'm not talking about those games. I'm not biased against any team. I've given the Jets FULL credit for getting to the AFCCG in 2009 and 2010. I'd love for the Dolphins to have done the same. I would've loved the Dolphins going to the SB 4 times like Buffalo did too. As a 31 yr old fan, I have no clue what the glory days for this team was like. All I've really ever known is heartbreak.

If the Jets were elite in my opinion I'd call them elite. There is no bias here. I could give two ****s about the Giants but they're now elite to me.

Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.

Expectations are a tricky thing. On one hand you have a SB champ that is expected to make the playoffs the following year and make noise. On the other hand, you have an up and coming team that people are picking as a darkhorse or even SB favorite.

How can there be both sides of it? There are different levels of measured success. The Dolphins going 8-8 or 9-7 this year would be a success seeing as how they are 7-9, 7-9, and 6-10 the last three years. The Packers could go 11-5 which is down from last year but can/will be considered a success.

If you improve on your record from either last year or the last few years that is successful to me. Having a winning pct of .625 in three years in between Super Bowl WINS is a success to me.

I'll go even further. If half your team gets injured and still manages to finish at 8-8 or better even with missing the playoffs, that's a success. There are multiple variables that exist in this topic like many other topics we discuss.

I agree, there are different levels of success. I was just asking TNG how on one had you can only have success winning a SB and on the other he says there are levels of success. I agree w/ the point about levels of success.

Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.

 

[13ktownguy]

:crazy:

so b/c he won 2 SB MVPs that he probably didn't deserve that makes him elite. He doesn't need to do another thing, he can never have an elite full season, he can throw 25 INTs a year ago, he can not win a playoff game in 6 of 8 seasons, throw for under 60% in half of his seasons, lead the league in INTs twice, never make a single AP team but he's elite b/c a ball stuck to a helmet.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.

Students of the game like you huh? If the Jets had gone 30-18 in three years I highly doubt you'd say that was an unsuccessful run.

Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.

I disagree

 

[nyjunc]

Students of the game like you huh? If the Jets had gone 30-18 in three years I highly doubt you'd say that was an unsuccessful run.



I disagree

If we were coming off a SB win I definitely would. That 3 year stretch was not a successful one.

 

[Kinzua]

Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.



I agree, there are different levels of success. I was just asking TNG how on one had you can only have success winning a SB and on the other he says there are levels of success. I agree w/ the point about levels of success.

Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.

I think this is absolutely the most absurd statement you've ever made here. The Gnats bookended that "unsuccessful" 3 year stint with Super Bowl wins. :crazy: They won 2 Super Bowls you fool!!! What they did in between doesn't matter. :crazy:

That's like saying the Pats were "unsuccessful" because they missed the playoffs in 2002. Too stupid to be true. :rolleyes2:


Of course that simply underscores that you have absolutely NO clue about what it's like to win a Super Bowl -- or even lose one for that matter.

 

[nyjunc]

I think this is absolutely the most absurd statement you've ever made here. The Gnats bookended that "unsuccessful" 3 year stints with Super Bowl wins. :crazy: They won 2 Super Bowls you fool!!! What they did in between doesn't matter. :crazy:

That's like saying the Pats were "unsuccessful" because they missed the playoffs in 2002. Too stupid to be true. :rolleyes2:

you need to pay attention, according to phinz you need to have success the few years after you win a SB in order to be considered elite. To me the Giants were elite the minute they won that 1st SB and bases on 3 in 5 seasons they are elite over that 5 year stretch but using his criteria they are not b/c they didn't have success in btw. On what planet is not winning a playoff game and missing 2 of 3 postseasons a success for a team coming off a SB win? Maybe for the Bills they'd throw a parade(it would probably be blacked out though) if they had a 3 year stretch like that but for a team off a SB win?

 

[DuderinoN703]

If we were coming off a SB win I definitely would. That 3 year stretch was not a successful one.

The Jets run recently wasn't successful?

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------

you need to pay attention, according to phinz you need to have success the few years after you win a SB in order to be considered elite. To me the Giants were elite the minute they won that 1st SB and bases on 3 in 5 seasons they are elite over that 5 year stretch but using his criteria they are not b/c they didn't have success in btw. On what planet is not winning a playoff game and missing 2 of 3 postseasons a success for a team coming off a SB win? Maybe for the Bills they'd throw a parade(it would probably be blacked out though) if they had a 3 year stretch like that but for a team off a SB win?

You make it seem like it's so common for Super Bowl winning teams to win the next 25 Super Bowls.