Schein: Ross is clueless and Miami has the worst quarterback corps in the league
- Thread starter Nublar7
- Start date
Do you literally not read what I say? In the same god damn response where I mentioned the Giants had success, I said "The Jets had success in the glory years you point out every 5 seconds."
I have ALWAYS given the Jets credit for their 2 AFCCG appearances. ALWAYS. Doing the things they did in 2009 and 2010 is having success. I've never denied that (hell, I might be the only one here).
I'm going by your criteria, if your criteria is success after the SB then they wouldn't be elite w/ zero playoff wins int he next 3 seasons.
Where's your apology of accusing me of saying the Jets didn't have success? You can't bring it up, get corrected, and then avoid it.
The Giants did have success after the 2007 SB. It appears your definition of what success is are playoff wins. My view is different. Going 30-18 in between SB wins is what makes them elite.
do you really need an apology? I apologize.
being elite isn't just making the playoffs or having a good record. You actually have to win in january which they didn't do- ZERO playoff wins in that 3 year span- that's not elite. The SB wins are elite and they are elite overall b/c of them but using your criteria where you have to have success in the next few seasons they would not be elite and we'll have to wait another few years so see if the '11 team was elite.
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
It is his definition of elite, and it is also his definition of what success is in between. How can you tell him what his definition of success is? You are always saying that the Jets are the only team to reach back to back AFCC games and that is your definition of elite. The Giants are the only team to go 30-18 in between 2 Super Bowl wins.
"Elitism" is a form-fitting, sliding scale when viewed from the forest off Green Street :idk:
I'm using his definition, he said you have to win a SB then be a top team the next few years. Clearly a team w/ zero playoff wins and 1 of 3 playoff apps was not a top team in that 3 year span.
This just shows how much of an idiot he is............
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/59341/backup-quarterback-plan
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
I haven't followed the whole conversation, but I believe he used the word success. It can be a relative term. For some it is the Super Bowl. For others, it is 2 AFCC game losses. :D
My point was that since it is his definition of what elite is, it is also his definition of what success is.
I don't need an apology, it's more for your credibility than anything else.
Your definition of elite sure. As we all know, your definition just so happens to one where the Jets are considered elite. I wonder why that is.
The Giants are elite b/c of their 2 SB titles. If they don't make it to another SB for 5+ years or even the playoffs in that time, they aren't elite any longer.
---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 PM ----------
He's trying to use my own definition of elite against me it seems. Try try again.
First you say that I said a team has to be great after their SB. Now you say I said a team has to be a top team. You continue to make up bull**** about my specific definition of what I believe elite is.
The Giants had success in between SB runs, there is no denying that.
---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------
Going 30-18 between SB titles is successful IMO. He's only crying about the Giants not winning a playoff game in that span b/c of what the Jets did in their historic, elite, never been seen two year run as AFC runner-up.
The New Guy
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 74
Like I said, success is a relative term. Although the Giants didn't have playoff success, I think it is reasonable to consider winning 30 games in 3 years as successful. Only Atl and NO won more regular season games in the NFC during that time period. Playoff wins are more important than regular season wins since the goal is to win the Super Bowl, but what does a playoff win get you if don't go all the way? If winning regular season games can't be considered successful, I don't know how losing 2 AFCC games can be considered successful. It is just one step further up the mountain before falling down and starting over again. Other than fans of the team, no one else really cares unless you make it to the top.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 15,549
- Reaction score
- 2,652
What the hell is even going on in this thread?
How is it considered success after winning a SB to go the next 3 years w/o winning a playoff game and missing 2 of those 3 postseasons?
I have more credibility than most on here so that doesn't concern me.
Again, over the last decade I don't consider the jets elite but in rex;s time here(the relevant time for most of these discussions) the Jets have been elite. You need to consistently be near the top of the league to be elite, 2 of 3 seasons(67%) they have been near the top of the league. if you go '07-'10 the Gianst were near the top one of those 4(25%)./ A SB win means moe than a title game app so that bumps them up but again I'm using your definition so according to your logic you have to maintain success for years after your SB win- ZERO playoff wins tells me they didn't maintain success.
They had one semi-successful season- great reg season and collapse in 1st postseason game. They didn't have success the next 2 years, the records were ok but in '10 they had a chance to take control of playoff destiny in week 16 at GB- they lost 45-17 where the elite QB threw 4 INts(part of his 25 for the season). In 2009 they were 8-8, that's good? so you are saying we had a good season this past year, right? The jets at least somewhat competed the last 2 weeks losing 2 close games while the last 2 games of 2009 the Giants lost 41-9 and 44-7.