Jerry Jabber Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Yeah, I hate former pro bowl QBs & comeback players of the year that went 21-9 as a starter for the Bills. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlutDo00.htm He was killing this team! Especially after all the success the franchise has had after they got rid of that "cancer." The Curse of Flutie.
PDaDdy Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Without question yes. I said a few days before that game whoever won it would win the superbowl. For some reason at the time it seemed pretty obvious for me. Little remember fact Rob Johnson could have, should have, been the hero of that game leading the team on a last minute comeback a portion of which he played without a shoe with that white sock flopping around. Typical Bills though. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
clearwater cadet Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Not with Rob Johnson, but flutie had something special. I was a flutie basher for years, but that guy just won football games plain and simple. For years, I always felt that would have been our best shot, expect for SB 25. That was the classic underdog story we've all seem so many times.
kenny3000 Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 "If, if, if...if my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle" - Jerry Bileski
BuffaloWings Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I am so tired of all the Flutie worship. Flutie played like crap the second half of that season. The Bills offense under him was struggling to score. That's why Johnson was put in for Flutie in the last game of the season (against the Colts), a game in which he TORE THEM APART. Yeah, he tore apart a bunch of 2nd & 3rd stringers on a team that was playing for absolutely nothing. You're also forgetting that Johnson started because the Bills were also locked into a playoff spot and would've gained nothing by winning that game. Flutie had been the starter all year, so he was getting the game off. I don't want to get into the Flutie/Johnson thing again. But I really can't stand the Flutie mythology. Flutie was a good player, made some amazing plays, but the decision to bench him was not based on nothing. The defense was carrying the team in the second half most of the season, not Flutie and the sputtering offense. Fixed. This is the reason they were a playoff team. Flutie masked a lot of problems with that o-line, so I think it's safe to say that he would have helped in the playoff game, but we don't know if he would have *won* them the game. It would have likely been a completely different game with Flutie in there.
Chef Jim Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Of course not. It's the Buffalo Bills you're talking about here.
dpberr Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Indianapolis and Jacksonville were very beatable. I'd say we would have had a shot at St. Louis. For all the firepower that St. Louis had, the game was largely a defensive battle.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Doug Flutie and Rob Johnson have won the same number of playoff games in their careers....
Dr. K Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Flutie masked a lot of problems with that o-line, so I think it's safe to say that he would have helped in the playoff game, but we don't know if he would have *won* them the game. It would have likely been a completely different game with Flutie in there. Besides, the defense is what carried that Bills team to the playoffs. I agree with this. He did mask the troubles of the o-line, much more than Johnson ever could. We just don't know what might have been, and to speculate is useless. But I will point out that Flutie did not win us the playoff game against Miami the previous season. Not that it was entirely up to him, But that's the point--whenever he won, all credit went to him, When he lost, it was somebody else's fault. And I want to point out that I never said I hated Flutie--I hate the MYTHOLOGY that surrounds him. He was a good quarterback, and certainly watching him play was different that watching anybody else in the game at that time. But the "Flutie Magic" thing always left me cold. Was it Flutie Magic when the Bills eked out a win 13-10 over a bad Patriots team that season the week before he was benched? When they lost 17-19 to the Giants two weeks before that, and 7-17 to the dog-ass Jets two weeks before that? When they barely beat the same bad Pats team 17-7 at home in between? When the Bills went 3-2 in the last five games he started despite the defense holding their opponents to 14 points per game over that period? I know the team feel apart after 2000. I'd pin that collapse on a lot more than the end of the Flutie era. And from the perspective of the last ten years, the Flutie era was a golden age. I'd be glad to watch those Wade Phillips teams again. But that's not the issue here. Peace.
Dr. K Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Yeah, he tore apart a bunch of 2nd & 3rd stringers on a team that was playing for absolutely nothing. Not true. The Colts in that final game were playing for home field advantage throughout the playoffs. They needed to win in order to assure that.
yungmack Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Simple answer: yes. 1) The Bills already beat the Colts with Rob Freakin' Johnson at QB, toying with them while giving Andre the shot at the receiver record. 2) Rob Johnson simply stunk. Whether you love Flutie or hate him, he had lots of very good performances while Johnson had zero. 3) Football is unlike most other team sports in that the players tend to get better as a team if they play together week in and week out. Which is why it was insanely stupid to replace Flutie at that point in the season with Johnson. Though it will always remain a "what if" question, it seems highly probable the Bills would have done much better against the Titans with Flutie under center. ( I also think it was insanely stupid of Levy to start a still-ailing Jim Kelly in the Super Bowl after a healthy Frank Reich had his great playoff run. Don't know if the Bills would have beat the 'Boys that year but I have to think they had a much better chance sticking with Reich for that game. That's my big "what if" question, second only to "what if" the Bills had gone to the very first Super Bowl, which they should have in my not-so-humble opinion). 4) If you accept that the Bills were a better team than the Titans with Flutie at QB, and factor in the easy win over the Colts in the previous game, in which the Bills appeared to be vastly better than Indy, then the only conclusion you can come to is that the Bills woulda-shoulda-coulda beat the Colts and then the Rams in the SB. At the very least, starting Flutie would have made this infernal question moot.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Well put, Dr.! I agree with this. He did mask the troubles of the o-line, much more than Johnson ever could. We just don't know what might have been, and to speculate is useless. But I will point out that Flutie did not win us the playoff game against Miami the previous season. Not that it was entirely up to him, But that's the point--whenever he won, all credit went to him, When he lost, it was somebody else's fault. And I want to point out that I never said I hated Flutie--I hate the MYTHOLOGY that surrounds him. He was a good quarterback, and certainly watching him play was different that watching anybody else in the game at that time. But the "Flutie Magic" thing always left me cold. Was it Flutie Magic when the Bills eked out a win 13-10 over a bad Patriots team that season the week before he was benched? When they lost 17-19 to the Giants two weeks before that, and 7-17 to the dog-ass Jets two weeks before that? When they barely beat the same bad Pats team 17-7 at home in between? When the Bills went 3-2 in the last five games he started despite the defense holding their opponents to 14 points per game over that period? I know the team feel apart after 2000. I'd pin that collapse on a lot more than the end of the Flutie era. And from the perspective of the last ten years, the Flutie era was a golden age. I'd be glad to watch those Wade Phillips teams again. But that's not the issue here. Peace.
ricojes Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 So, if we get by Tennessee who held no real higher position than us do we get to and beat St. Louis ? Did we have the firepower to make it all the way and change our destiny at that time? That team was built for a one year run at the SB. if you remember after that season, the Bills were in salary cap hell and let a lot of veterans go. the beginning of the rebuilding process which still continues to this day.....
Dr. K Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 2) Rob Johnson simply stunk. Whether you love Flutie or hate him, he had lots of very good performances while Johnson had zero. Look, Flutie was a better QB overall than Rob Johnson. But that doesn't mean Johnson had zero good performances. Why do you have to insist that? This is what I mean by mythology. In that final game of the season against the Colts, who were 13-2 at that time, and fighting Jacksonville for home field in the playoffs, in a game that the Colts played their first stringers including Peyton Manning until they were hopelessly behind in the second half, Johnson went 24/32 for 287 yards passing, 2 TDs, no ints, and ran 7 times for 36 yards. 323 yards of total offense. The Bills won 31-7. Flutie did not put up numbers like that in the entire season. The Bills had averaged 19 points a game under Flutie all season, 13 points per game over the previous five games. Maybe it was a mistake, but was it incomprehensible that Phillips should start Johnson in the playoffs under those circumstances?
Adam Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Not a chance. By the end of the Titans game our O-line was so banged up we had to replace our already poor starters with some dreadful options for blockers. Would have lost to the Colts on the road fo sho.... I think if I'm not mistaken there was one starter left. Didn't Dusty Zeigler step in to play left tackle? Had Greer and Linton decided to stay in their lanes, Rob Johnson's shoeless play would have gone down in Bills' lore and his career may have been very different.
CountDorkula Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Can you just imagine if that was us that year and we lost the same way. Not sure what would have been worse "wide right" or "Inches Short"
Talley56 Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Given the fact that the Titans were 13-3 that regular season, a record, which in many other years, would have won them home field advantage (they were only a wild card team because Jacksonville was 14-2) I think we would have stood a very good chance to knock off Indy and Jax to get to the superbowl. I feel that, because of the Titans record, they were a wild card team on the same level as a first round bye team so if we could have gotten past them who knows what could have happened. However, winning three straight road games against that calibur of competition then beating St Louis in the superbowl I think would have required better stability at the QB position. As much as I like Flutie I don't even think keeping him in would have done it. But like many have mentioned on this thread, I have also spent numerous moments in the last 10 years wondering what could have been.
K-9 Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Flutie would not have made a difference. Dr. K is right on this point. Flutie was pedestrian at best in '99 as defenses really caught on to his game and exploited his limitiations. They seldom allowed him to get outside, especially the second half of the season and gave him few passing lanes which, due to his height, he needed to create on his own (with diminishing results as 1999 wore on). Flutie was a shot in the arm and a revelation when he burst on the scene against the Jags and we caught lightening in a bottle. But once defenses caught up to him he was mostly ineffective. Flutie is also one of the greatest ad-libbers I've ever seen on a field. And he possessed a GREAT offensive mind. I'd love to see him as an OC. GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Look, Flutie was a better QB overall than Rob Johnson. But that doesn't mean Johnson had zero good performances. Why do you have to insist that? This is what I mean by mythology. In that final game of the season against the Colts, who were 13-2 at that time, and fighting Jacksonville for home field in the playoffs, in a game that the Colts played their first stringers including Peyton Manning until they were hopelessly behind in the second half, Johnson went 24/32 for 287 yards passing, 2 TDs, no ints, and ran 7 times for 36 yards. 323 yards of total offense. The Bills won 31-7. Flutie did not put up numbers like that in the entire season. The Bills had averaged 19 points a game under Flutie all season, 13 points per game over the previous five games. Maybe it was a mistake, but was it incomprehensible that Phillips should start Johnson in the playoffs under those circumstances? Basing an assessment of Rob Johnson on one game is what led the Bills to that monumental disaster of a decision to trade for him in the first place. Ralph called him "a Monet". He certainly wasn't "money". Even questioning whether we would have beaten the Greatest Show on Turf with RJ's 100 yards (or 200--pick a number) is evidence of a complete disconnect with reality.
Doc Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Not a chance. By the end of the Titans game our O-line was so banged up we had to replace our already poor starters with some dreadful options for blockers. Would have lost to the Colts on the road fo sho.... I think if I'm not mistaken there was one starter left. I was going to post this. And no, Flutie wouldn't have made a difference.
Recommended Posts