I was merely pointing out that they do not belong on a list prefaced as “Making the Super Bowl and losing isn’t anything to brag about.”
As for them being perennial losers, I would disagree. In the past ten years they have…[ul][li]…posted a winning record seven times, and a losing record only twice, for a “season record” of 7-2-1. One of those winning seasons included a 12-4 record.[/li][li]…a combined regular season record of 88-75 including the first three games of this season, 13 games over .500.[/li][li]…appeared in a conference championship game, losing to the eventual Superbowl champion Broncos.[/li][li]…made 5 playoff appearances with 3 playoff wins. (Including a 41-0 trouncing of Peyton Manning’s Colts.)[/li][li]…won their division twice.[/li][li]…not posted back-to-back losing seasons.[/ul]I’d hazard a guess that Cleveland, Arizona and Detroit fans would trade their last ten years for that in a heartbeat.[/li]
As far as not winning anything, they did win the division a couple times. It would be disingenuous to label a team that made the playoffs in 5 of the past 10 years as a perennial loser.
Ellis, the Jets’ regular season record from 1997 to present averages to 9-7 per year, with a playoff record of 3-6. Big whoop. Mediocre at best. Keep in mind that making the playoffs in the NFL isn’t that difficult (Now more than 1/3 of the league gets into the playoffs each year). Detroit had a similar record from 1991-2000, going 82-78 with 6 playoff appearances, and nobody in MoTown was too impressed with their performance (though it looks good in retrospect during the current Millen years)
Well, basically 20 out of the 32 teams are going to have a lot of disgruntled fans every year and even the teams that are usually successful hear the boos when they have problems. Fan satisfaction can’t really be a valid criteria. I for onr am a Steeler fan but I have never been a fan of Bill Cowher. I know he is going to be in the HOF eventually, but I still am glad he is no longer the coach. You can’t please everyone. If you are averaging 9-7 over a long period of time I say you are doing a good job.
I think you’re setting the bar way too high. Out of curiosity, what teams do you not consider “currently long-standing stinky teams”? I’d like to see the list.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the term “loser” implies, well, losing.
So a team that makes the playoffs regularly, or even on a fifty-fifty basis, and has a regular season record on aggregate that is above .500, cannot be labled a “perennial loser.” For what it is worth.
Losing the Superbowl may not be something to brag about, but you can’t exactly call those teams underachievers. In a league that has 32 teams and only one champion each year, there has to be lower levels of “success,” especially when looking at a multiple years. Winning seasons, division wins, playoff wins, conference wins. Not achieving any of those, or very few, over a period of years is bad, not achieving any of those over the course of many, many years is chronically bad.
Okay, so if I have this straight, a team that’s posted a winning record 7 out of the last 10 years stinks because its only Superbowl win was in 1968 instead of 1970?
That’s some quality logic you’re employing there. You realize that you’re also saying that the Eagles stink, right?
Most people would probably agree with the basic premise of never winning a Superbowl = loser franchise. But if you then abitrarily discard four Superbowls, it really looks like you’re engaging in a rationalization just to be able to include the Jets in that list.
If a team’s last championship was during the Johnson administration, or in the case of the Eagles, the Eisenhower administration, then it stinks, whether it’s been a bit above average for the last 10 years or not.
This is patently obvious; the two years between 1968 and 1970 are a clear and credible line of demarcation between “stinks” and “not stinks”. That is completely logical and not insane in any way.
Ellis, if my math is correct, and my math should always be doublechecked, the Jets’ record since the merger is a less than sterling 250-318-2, with 0 Super Bowl wins. If that record seems high quality, or at least acceptably mediocre to you, that’s fine by me, but I think that record stinks.
My choice of the cut off being the merger is perfectly acceptable to me, if not to you. And the team on the cusp of the cutoff with a right to complain is KC, not the Jets.
As Ellis says, that is a great link. Thanks. I was particularly impressed that not only did it have NFL teams, but also NCAA (several divisions), CFL and Michigan HS football. Someone put a heck of a lot of work into that.
Based on that list I’d nominate the Saints as the worst team ever; their winning percentage is just a hair better than Tampa Bay’s, but Tampa did win a Super Bowl, so they get some extra credit for that.
