SPAIN: Rex Ryan participated in the running of the bulls. No bulls were injured.

[nyjunc]

according to you we have 2 world championships having won an AFL title and SB title so we have as many as Miami!

 

[Vaark]

according to you we have 2 world championships having won an AFL title and SB title so we have as many as Miami!

I understand that comprehension is not your strongest suit, but I've said that any superbowl pre-merger, when the AFL was a diluted, sporadically talented league, and a so-called postseason was sometimes not even the equivalent of a conference championship in the competitive post merger NFL, may provide fans of forlorn teams with really nothing tangible to hold on to with a little succor. However in reality compared to real SBs and conference championships, it amounts to little more than "fools gold"

 

[Jetsfan89]

Thats so awesome

 

[HarryBagpipe]

Did it years ago. Not sure if anything changed but depending on where you start you might not even see a bull until you get into the ring at the end. I still have the rolled up newspaper that you use to try to whack the bulls as they pass you. What I didn't know was that at the end of the run you wind up in the ring which is then closed off. They than let bulls run around it while everyone scatters. If you try to jump over the railing to get out of the ring, the spaniards will try to throw you back over. Lol. I think I read the next day that 16 people got hospitalized that day. I saw one guy ten feet from me on the street get hit and wind up getting flipped over the bull maybe winding up 12 feet in the air. Crazy stuff.

 

[nyjunc]

I understand that comprehension is not your strongest suit, but I've said that any superbowl pre-merger, when the AFL was a diluted, sporadically talented league, and a so-called postseason was sometimes not even the equivalent of a conference championship in the competitive post merger NFL, may provide fans of forlorn teams with really nothing tangible to hold on to with a little succor. However in reality compared to real SBs and conference championships, it amounts to little more than "fools gold"

it's so comical(unintentional of course) how all the things you call me are issues that you deal with.

You know the year the Jets won the AFL title they also beat the NFL champ, right? the next year the AFL won again so how diluted was it? Your problem is you cannot give credit to the Jets and you make excuses for the dolphins. I am not silly enough to call an AFL title in the SB era a championship just as no intelligent football fan would give the '68 colts a championship for winning the NFL.

 

[WVDolphan]

He's an excellent HC, what he did last year w/ the healthy talent we had was amazing.

:rotfl1:

 

[The New Guy]

6-10 and still had a playoff shot into December for a team that was talked about like they were a 1 win team.

rex hasn't been loud in years, I wish he would be again. I think that has taken a little of the edge off, I see signs of him going back to being himself this year. I hope it happens.

I hope Rex is here for another decade. we'll be back soon, it won't take us over a decade to win a playoff game again like certain franchises.

The Jets have already been through 2 different decades without winning a playoff game. I think the Jets will be starting over with a new coach and QB as early as next season, so I wouldn't be shocked if they don't win a playoff game in the next 7 years to make it a 3rd. :D

 

[nyjunc]

The Jets have already been through 2 different decades without winning a playoff game. I think the Jets will be starting over with a new coach and QB as early as next season, so I wouldn't be shocked if they don't win a playoff game in the next 7 years to make it a 3rd. :D

Actually it was ONE decade, the 1970s. we won a SB in the 60s and made title games in the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10's.

 

[Vaark]

it's so comical(unintentional of course) how all the things you call me are issues that you deal with.

You know the year the Jets won the AFL title they also beat the NFL champ, right? the next year the AFL won again so how diluted was it? Your problem is you cannot give credit to the Jets and you make excuses for the dolphins. I am not silly enough to call an AFL title in the SB era a championship just as no intelligent football fan would give the '68 colts a championship for winning the NFL.

Well, congratulations on making it at most charitably to the equivalent of a modern Conference Round. Speaking of that, you do know that the team you beat in the 2nd round of the '68 playoffs went on to lose the first 2 games in '69 and end up 8-5-1? So who's to say they would have made it thru a real conference round either in '68. :idk:

Now stripping away all the BS: the fact of the matter is, if your team wins a conference championship in the post-merger modern era you've achieved a happy ending. If your team actually wins the SB, you've achieved "the happiest ending." Any failures short of those is really just a case of blue balls and hardly worthy of exaltation -that's of course unless the history of your franchise is so forlorn, you've got nothing more tangibly real on which to hang your hat.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Well, congratulations on making it at most charitably to the equivalent of a modern Conference Round. Speaking of that, you do know that the team you beat in the 2nd round of the '68 playoffs went on to lose the first 2 games in '69 and end up 8-5-1? So who's to say they would have made it thru a real conference round either in '68. :idk:

Now stripping away all the BS: the fact of the matter is, if your team wins a conference championship in the post-merger modern era you've achieved a happy ending. If your team actually wins the SB, you've achieved "the happiest ending." Any failures short of those is really just a case of blue balls and hardly worthy of exaltation -that's of course unless the history of your franchise is so forlorn, you've got nothing more tangibly real on which to hang your hat.

For ****'s sake, you're arguing over **** that happened 44 years ago?

 

[Vaark]

just making the case that anything short of a true conference championship is fools gold

 

[The New Guy]

Actually it was ONE decade, the 1970s. we won a SB in the 60s and made title games in the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10's.

I was using the definition for a period of ten consecutive years. The Jets have gone 10 consecutive years without winning a playoff game TWICE in franchise history.

 

[nyjunc]

Well, congratulations on making it at most charitably to the equivalent of a modern Conference Round. Speaking of that, you do know that the team you beat in the 2nd round of the '68 playoffs went on to lose the first 2 games in '69 and end up 8-5-1? So who's to say they would have made it thru a real conference round either in '68. :idk:

Now stripping away all the BS: the fact of the matter is, if your team wins a conference championship in the post-merger modern era you've achieved a happy ending. If your team actually wins the SB, you've achieved "the happiest ending." Any failures short of those is really just a case of blue balls and hardly worthy of exaltation -that's of course unless the history of your franchise is so forlorn, you've got nothing more tangibly real on which to hang your hat.

can you translate to English please? are you talking about the great Baltimore team? one that was being talked about as possibly the greatest ever prior to SB III? what does what they did in 1969 have to do w/ 1968? and you know after they let Shula go following that disappointing '69 team they actually won a SB the next year, right?

just making the case that anything short of a true conference championship is fools gold

you are making excuses as you always do.

I was using the definition for a period of ten consecutive years. The Jets have gone 10 consecutive years without winning a playoff game TWICE in franchise history.

oh so you are making up your own definition b/c you have nothing. I got it.

 

[Vaark]

IMO, blaming the defense instead of Sanchez because they held an anemic Buiffalo offense to as much as 17 points, blaming everyone but Sanchez for throwing into triple coverage and not being able to handle handoffs, and having a game and season turn on a first half Cruz 95+yd touchdown run (although the Giants ended up nearly doubling the jest score.) that the 09 Atlanta team won in a must win game at home because "they wanted to have 2 winning seasons in a row", and about 100 more fanboy spins, rationalizations and excuses) make you accusing anyone else of "excuses" laughable to everyone but you. :up:

 

[nyjunc]

IMO, blaming the defense instead of Sanchez because they held an anemic Buiffalo offense to as much as 17 points, blaming everyone but Sanchez for throwing into triple coverage and not being able to handle handoffs, and having a game and season turn on a first half Cruz 95+yd touchdown run (although the Giants ended up nearly doubling the jest score.) that the 09 Atlanta team won in a must win game at home because "they wanted to have 2 winning seasons in a row", and about 100 more fanboy spins, rationalizations and excuses) make you accusing anyone else of "excuses" laughable to everyone but you. :up:

I give Mark the blame he deserves.

as fro Atlanta, read on. I can't believe I have to explain such basic things to you like this and the momentum turning in the NYG game.

http://www.replaytheseries.com/pages/landing_catholic?blockID=103510&tagID=10407

"Back-to-back winning seasons, we have a chance to make it happen," White said. "We have to go out there and tackle these games one by one. From there, we'll break the streak."