Jump to content

Is Revis a lock for first ballot HOF?


greenwichjetfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, nyjunc said:

I wouldn't waste my time w/ that poster.  He is as clueless as they come.  according to him Revis played no role in helping NE win and Sanchez, Rex, Tannenbaum, Schottenheimer all sucked but we lucked into 4 road playoff wins.

To be fair, they did suck and there was an element of luck to those wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun Fact: Getting to back-to-back Championship games is not a major accomplishment and happens fairly frequently.  Look it up.

Fun Fact: Mike Tannenbaum was the longest tenured GM of his era to not have a Super Bowl appearance.

How in the world do you celebrate a guy who never made it to a Super Bowl, and who's practices built a team that was good enough to do something that many teams do over the years and then left that team too old, too expensive, with too little depth, and almost completely devoid of young talent?  Because that's Mike Tannenbaum's legacy.  The fact that we're still rebuilding is a direct result of Mike Tannenbaum's overspending and trading draft picks for expensive veterans.  Idzik's blown draft picks obviously play a large role, but outside of the draft, Idzik's tenure was spent cleaning up Tannenbaum's mess. GM's need to focus on the present while having long-term vision, and Tannenbaum went all-in and his magnum opus, which he mortgaged, and really decimated the future for, was holding a lead in an AFC Championship game for about 19-minutes.

You want to make an argument for Rex -- at least he had highly ranked defenses, you want to make an argument for Sanchez -- at least the team had some success (despite him), but you want to make an argument for Mike Tannenbaum -- you just don't understand the role of NFL GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Fun Fact: Getting to back-to-back Championship games is not a major accomplishment and happens fairly frequently.  Look it up.

Fun Fact: Mike Tannenbaum was the longest tenured GM of his era to not have a Super Bowl appearance.

How in the world do you celebrate a guy who never made it to a Super Bowl, and who's practices built a team that was good enough to do something that many teams do over the years and then left that team too old, too expensive, with too little depth, and almost completely devoid of young talent?  Because that's Mike Tannenbaum's legacy.  The fact that we're still rebuilding is a direct result of Mike Tannenbaum's overspending and trading draft picks for expensive veterans.  Idzik's blown draft picks obviously play a large role, but outside of the draft, Idzik's tenure was spent cleaning up Tannenbaum's mess. GM's need to focus on the present while having long-term vision, and Tannenbaum went all-in and his magnum opus, which he mortgaged, and really decimated the future for, was holding a lead in an AFC Championship game for about 19-minutes.

You want to make an argument for Rex -- at least he had highly ranked defenses, you want to make an argument for Sanchez -- at least the team had some success (despite him), but you want to make an argument for Mike Tannenbaum -- you just don't understand the role of NFL GM.

since 2000 back to back title game apps:

 

NE numerous times

Bal 2011-2012

NYJ 2009-2010

Pitt 2004-2005

 

only 3 AFC teams besides the NY jets have done it this Century

 

the second part I don't know if it is true but no other GM w/ success had NE in their division and the greatest QB of all time to seal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

since 2000 back to back title game apps:

 

NE numerous times

Bal 2011-2012

NYJ 2009-2010

Pitt 2004-2005

 

only 3 AFC teams besides the NY jets have done it this Century

 

the second part I don't know if it is true but no other GM w/ success had NE in their division and the greatest QB of all time to seal with.

You say "century" to exaggerate the timeframe, when in reality you're looking at 16 years.  So, basically, in that 16 years, The pats have gone to consecutive title games 7x, the Ravens have gone 1x, the Jets have gone 1x, and Pitt has gone 1x.  So, in 16 years, it's happened 10 times.  And that's just in the AFC.  On the other side, the Eagles did it 3x, the 49ers 2x, and the Seahawks once.   The point being, that's not a valid measurement of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say "century" to exaggerate the timeframe, when in reality you're looking at 16 years.  So, basically, in that 16 years, The pats have gone to consecutive title games 7x, the Ravens have gone 1x, the Jets have gone 1x, and Pitt has gone 1x.  So, in 16 years, it's happened 10 times.  And that's just in the AFC.  On the other side, the Eagles did it 3x, the 49ers 2x, and the Seahawks once.   The point being, that's not a valid measurement of success.

Damn, junc just got owned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gEYno said:

You say "century" to exaggerate the timeframe, when in reality you're looking at 16 years.  So, basically, in that 16 years, The pats have gone to consecutive title games 7x, the Ravens have gone 1x, the Jets have gone 1x, and Pitt has gone 1x.  So, in 16 years, it's happened 10 times.  And that's just in the AFC.  On the other side, the Eagles did it 3x, the 49ers 2x, and the Seahawks once.   The point being, that's not a valid measurement of success.

16 years is a LONG time, only 4 teams in the AFC have made back to back title games.  That's just 25% and we are one of those teams.

 

so you are saying in the NFC only 3 teams have done it?  3 out of 16, less than 19%.  Overall 7 of 32 teams, under 22% and we are one of those teams.  That's pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

And 3 of those 4 teams went on to win Super Bowls.

 

And that is what the AFCCG is for. Not just to get there and lose.

I understand that but we only have 4 AFC title game apps in our history and 2 of them came under Tannenbaum.  we shouldn't be building a statue but he should be thought of highly by Jet fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

16 years is a LONG time, only 4 teams in the AFC have made back to back title games.  That's just 25% and we are one of those teams.

so you are saying in the NFC only 3 teams have done it?  3 out of 16, less than 19%.  Overall 7 of 32 teams, under 22% and we are one of those teams.  That's pretty good.

 

26 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

And 3 of those 4 teams went on to win Super Bowls.

And that is what the AFCCG is for. Not just to get there and lose.

As Tx says, this is not a meaningful accomplishment.  It's happened quite a bit, and with no super bowl, and a prolonged rebuild following those appearances, no measure of success.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gEYno said:

 

As Tx says, this is not a meaningful accomplishment.  It's happened quite a bit, and with no super bowl, and a prolonged rebuild following those appearances, no measure of success.

you tried to tell me everyone does it, I proved that's not the case.  it's not meaningful to a Pats fan that has seen 4 SB titles in the last 15 years, it should be meaningful to Jet fans that haven't seen a SB since the 1968 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you tried to tell me everyone does it, I proved that's not the case.  it's not meaningful to a Pats fan that has seen 4 SB titles in the last 15 years, it should be meaningful to Jet fans that haven't seen a SB since the 1968 season.

No.  I said, "it happens fairly frequently," which, on the AFC side, is 10x in 16 years.  You manipulated it to be about the amount of teams that do it.

You grade the team on a curve.  Good for you.  But, that's a loser's mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gEYno said:

No.  I said, "it happens fairly frequently," which, on the AFC side, is 10x in 16 years.  You manipulated it to be about the amount of teams that do it.

You grade the team on a curve.  Good for you.  But, that's a loser's mentality.

7 of 32 teams since 2000 is not frequent. it's frequent for the Brady's, it's not frequent for any other team.  The Manning Colts or Broncos never made 2 title games in a row, the great Pitt teams have only done it one time.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

7 of 32 teams since 2000 is not frequent. it's frequent for the Brady's, it's not frequent for any other team.  The Manning Colts or Broncos never made 2 title games in a row, the great Pitt teams have only done it one time.

Still manipulating... Still celebrating back-to-back non-super bowl appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 of 32 teams since 2000 is not frequent. it's frequent for the Brady's, it's not frequent for any other team.  The Manning Colts or Broncos never made 2 title games in a row, the great Pitt teams have only done it one time.

 

 

 

Why did you pick the year 2000 for your analysis?

If you go back to the AFC-NFC merger, you theory really falls a part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

Why did you pick the year 2000 for your analysis?

 

If you go back to the AFC-NFC merger, you theory really falls a part.

I was including recent, relevant history.  what does 1975 have to do w/ now?  it was a different game w/ different rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...