If we beat the Titans, do we win the Superbowl in 2000?

[Adam]

So you mean to tell me that the one guy on the team who touches the ball on every single offensive snap has nothing to do with the outcome of the game?

I never said that. Wins and losses are not a QB statistic and never will be

[mike oxhurtz]

Oy. He had a better record in Buffalo because he had a better team around him. He wasn't the reason they won, and he wasn't the reason they lost in SD. And he was the better QB in Buffalo because he was durable and RJ wasn't. But again, he wasn't the reason the Bills won.

 

You need to re-read other posts on here where I've said that the defense was the main reason why the Bills won. Flutie did not light up defenses like Kelly did, but then again, Kelly never had the defenses like Flutie & Johnson did. Most likely, if you have a superbowl caliber defense, then that means you're most likely to have a sub-par/mediocre offense. The 98-00 Bills are a good example that. The 2000 Ravens are another great example. The 1985 Bears were another example. Jim McMahon was a decent QB, but not great. Walter Payton was the Bears biggest and best offensive weapon. So, with great defenses like the one's I mentioned, sometimes all you need is just a competent QB to manage the game and win. Whether you win by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. As long as the team has a winning record, who cares what the score is. Do you think the Giants cared what the final score was when they beat the Bills in SBXXV by 1 point...HELL NO!!!

[mike oxhurtz]

The Bills made the decision they thought was best for the organization. Flutie got paid what they were contractually obligated to pay him- he didn't get screwed. The game is bigger than any of the players

 

Wrong decision, wrong time. If the Bills owner/management/coaches or whoever thought that Rob Johnson would have made a difference on offense, then that decision should have been made by mid-season at the very latest. Switching QB's that late in the season caused a ton of problems on offense in the Titans game. There were numerous false start penalties, the chemistry was off and it took Johnson 58 minutes into the game to finally play good.

[Jerry Jabber]

You need to re-read other posts on here where I've said that the defense was the main reason why the Bills won. Flutie did not light up defenses like Kelly did, but then again, Kelly never had the defenses like Flutie & Johnson did. Most likely, if you have a superbowl caliber defense, then that means you're most likely to have a sub-par/mediocre offense. The 98-00 Bills are a good example that. The 2000 Ravens are another great example. The 1985 Bears were another example. Jim McMahon was a decent QB, but not great. Walter Payton was the Bears biggest and best offensive weapon. So, with great defenses like the one's I mentioned, sometimes all you need is just a competent QB to manage the game and win. Whether you win by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. As long as the team has a winning record, who cares what the score is. Do you think the Giants cared what the final score was when they beat the Bills in SBXXV by 1 point...HELL NO!!!

 

I agree 100%.

 

The 2000 Ravens main pieces on offense were Dilfer, Sharpe and Lewis. The Ravens offense just did enough to manage the game and let the defense do the rest.

[Adam]

Wrong decision, wrong time. If the Bills owner/management/coaches or whoever thought that Rob Johnson would have made a difference on offense, then that decision should have been made by mid-season at the very latest. Switching QB's that late in the season caused a ton of problems on offense in the Titans game. There were numerous false start penalties, the chemistry was off and it took Johnson 58 minutes into the game to finally play good.

I can agree about it being the wrong time, although I think the false starts were more due to injuries and guys playing out of position (I remember Zeigler playing left tackle for an injuried Fina). I still don't feel bad for Flutie or any player that gets benched. You make a decision and live with it.

[Jerry Jabber]

Wrong decision, wrong time. If the Bills owner/management/coaches or whoever thought that Rob Johnson would have made a difference on offense, then that decision should have been made by mid-season at the very latest. Switching QB's that late in the season caused a ton of problems on offense in the Titans game. There were numerous false start penalties, the chemistry was off and it took Johnson 58 minutes into the game to finally play good.

 

[Doc]

You need to re-read other posts on here where I've said that the defense was the main reason why the Bills won. Flutie did not light up defenses like Kelly did, but then again, Kelly never had the defenses like Flutie & Johnson did. Most likely, if you have a superbowl caliber defense, then that means you're most likely to have a sub-par/mediocre offense. The 98-00 Bills are a good example that. The 2000 Ravens are another great example. The 1985 Bears were another example. Jim McMahon was a decent QB, but not great. Walter Payton was the Bears biggest and best offensive weapon. So, with great defenses like the one's I mentioned, sometimes all you need is just a competent QB to manage the game and win. Whether you win by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. As long as the team has a winning record, who cares what the score is. Do you think the Giants cared what the final score was when they beat the Bills in SBXXV by 1 point...HELL NO!!!

In 1998 the defense was 16th in points allowed while the offense was 7th in scoring. In 1999 the defense was 2nd in points allowed while the offense was 16th in scoring. In 2000, the defense was 18th in scoring and the offense was 20th in scoring. The offense slipped badly from 1998 to 1999, while the defense did the opposite, then it dropped off a cliff in 2000 and especially 2001. The decrease in scoring from 1998 to 1999 was a cause for alarm, and a testament to the dominance of the defense. Hence the reason for the move to RJ after his performance against the playoff-bound Colts. And when he left the field against the Titans (who were undefeated and allowing 16.4 PPG at home that year) in that playoff game, the Bills had the lead, only to see it lost by the ST's. Whose fault is that?

[Skoobydum]

In 1998 the defense was 16th in points allowed while the offense was 7th in scoring. In 1999 the defense was 2nd in points allowed while the offense was 16th in scoring. In 2000, the defense was 18th in scoring and the offense was 20th in scoring. The offense slipped badly from 1998 to 1999, while the defense did the opposite, then it dropped off a cliff in 2000 and especially 2001. The decrease in scoring from 1998 to 1999 was a cause for alarm, and a testament to the dominance of the defense. Hence the reason for the move to RJ after his performance against the playoff-bound Colts. And when he left the field against the Titans (who were undefeated and allowing 16.4 PPG at home that year) in that playoff game, the Bills had the lead, only to see it lost by the ST's. Whose fault is that?

 

The refs, it was a forward lateral proved many times over on instant replay. How the ref seen it any other way besides the fans that were ready to storm the field and kill him threat, we'll never know.

 

The league heard we might make the SB that year and the bell went off, no more Bills in the superbowl.

[Doc]

The refs, it was a forward lateral proved many times over on instant replay. How the ref seen it any other way besides the fans that were ready to storm the field and kill him threat, we'll never know.

The ref, Byron Boston (David Boston's dad), wasn't in position to judge whether it was a forward pass or not. So he didn't call anything and hoped replay would sort it out. Had he called it a forward pass, on replay it wouldn't have been overturned, so the initial call (or non-call as the case was) was critical. But I agree that even if the Bills won that day, with the state of the O-line and the Rams being a team of destiny, the odds of the Bills making it to, much less winning, the SB, were very low.

[Skoobydum]

The ref, Byron Boston (David Boston's dad), wasn't in position to judge whether it was a forward pass or not. So he didn't call anything and hoped replay would sort it out. Had he called it a forward pass, on replay it wouldn't have been overturned, so the initial call (or non-call as the case was) was critical. But I agree that even if the Bills won that day, with the state of the O-line and the Rams being a team of destiny, the odds of the Bills making it to, much less winning, the SB, were very low.

 

Letting a hokey trick play determine the game to begin with lowers everyone's involved intelligence level. If it's close and the guy isn't obviously behind you, it's forward and illegal.

 

Music city Miracles don't happen that often, it was a miracle the ref missed it.

[Adam]

The refs, it was a forward lateral proved many times over on instant replay. How the ref seen it any other way besides the fans that were ready to storm the field and kill him threat, we'll never know.

 

The league heard we might make the SB that year and the bell went off, no more Bills in the superbowl.

Sorry, but as furious as I was when it happened, I have to say no. Very tough on the field call, and replay can't accurately handle this type of play either, because angles skew the view on whether it was a lateral or not. There was no conspiracy- the refs did everything they could

[Skoobydum]

Sorry, but as furious as I was when it happened, I have to say no. Very tough on the field call, and replay can't accurately handle this type of play either, because angles skew the view on whether it was a lateral or not. There was no conspiracy- the refs did everything they could

 

The play was broken down on a show a few years ago, the Refs blew the call to begin with by being out of position. Then the replays looked like a throw to a guy across from you, which is not behind you. Therefore you have to question if that guy was going forward after catching the ball.

 

Simple ref rules, if it's not behind you its ahead of you. He didn't call it and it's still wrong.

[Adam]

The play was broken down on a show a few years ago, the Refs blew the call to begin with by being out of position. Then the replays looked like a throw to a guy across from you, which is not behind you. Therefore you have to question if that guy was going forward after catching the ball.

 

Simple ref rules, if it's not behind you its ahead of you. He didn't call it and it's still wrong.

Every officiating class and clinic I have been a part of lays out the positioning rules for before a play and documents as many potential situations regarding positioning during the play. Beyond that, officials are taught to try to best cover the highest percentage plays from that point. From my experience as an umpire, I can guarantee there is a high level of communication between officials before every play- be is verbal or signals.

 

There are a lot of things that can put an official in bad positions- trick plays in football, a bad hop in baseball.

 

sure, maybe the call was blown. We may never know- I hope to never know.

 

All I know is that it was a decade ago now- I have endured things far more real than a bad call in a football game- I am well over the homerun throwback. I actually can look back now at what a good game it was and what a stellar game our defense put it. I think I remember Peerless Price having a good game as well. Just remember- a blown call put us in Superbowl XXVII.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

As painful as that game was, the replays in my mind definitively supported the call - I mean we as Bills fans want to believe it was a blown call but let me make 2 statements why in my mind the refs made the right call. First, in order to have a forward lateral, the receiving player must be ahead of the throwing player. At best, according to every angle available for replay, the receiver was parallel to the throwing player. Secondly, had the receiver been 2 feet further back, the call would have been unquestionable, and the result would have been the same. Ultimately, the Bills FAILED to stop a simple trick play that they should have known was very possible if not probable. The onus is on the Bills for not making the play. 99 times out of 100 that play gets stopped, and thus why did we deserve to have such a close call go our way? No - the correct call was made. It took me probably five years of stewing over that before I was able to admit that to myself. Some of you are still in serious denial.

 

To answer the original question: yes I think the Bills were the only team in the NFL who could beat the Rams that year. I really believed it was our year at the time, and I believed only the Bills could topple the juggernaut. I was utterly shocked that the Titans held it so close in the SB. I remember that loss was excruciating to me because it just felt like it was our time for redemption. Fate had a different and more cruelly ironic destiny in mind however, as the decade since then has seen our once proud franchise become a joke.

 

But hey - the Red Sox did win the series, so we will always have hope.

[Orton's Arm]

The ref, Byron Boston (David Boston's dad), wasn't in position to judge whether it was a forward pass or not. So he didn't call anything and hoped replay would sort it out. Had he called it a forward pass, on replay it wouldn't have been overturned, so the initial call (or non-call as the case was) was critical. But I agree that even if the Bills won that day, with the state of the O-line and the Rams being a team of destiny, the odds of the Bills making it to, much less winning, the SB, were very low.

As for the injuries on the Bills' OL: the tackles went into that game hurt. The Bills were actually better off with unhurt backup tackles than they were with injured starting tackles. (Especially when the starters were mediocre even when not injured.)

 

Even with the injuries on the OL, the Bills came within a special teams play of beating the Titans. The Titans came within a few feet of winning the Super Bowl.

 

Going from starting OTs to backups is almost always a downgrade. But let's face it--even when our starters were healthy, it's not like we had Tony Boselli out there. Going from John Fina to some backup isn't that big a downgrade, as long as the backup is reasonably respectable. Ditto the RT position. I think the Bills had a good enough overall team that they could have been competitive throughout the playoffs despite the problems on the OL.

[Doc]

As for the injuries on the Bills' OL: the tackles went into that game hurt. The Bills were actually better off with unhurt backup tackles than they were with injured starting tackles. (Especially when the starters were mediocre even when not injured.)

 

Even with the injuries on the OL, the Bills came within a special teams play of beating the Titans. The Titans came within a few feet of winning the Super Bowl.

 

Going from starting OTs to backups is almost always a downgrade. But let's face it--even when our starters were healthy, it's not like we had Tony Boselli out there. Going from John Fina to some backup isn't that big a downgrade, as long as the backup is reasonably respectable. Ditto the RT position. I think the Bills had a good enough overall team that they could have been competitive throughout the playoffs despite the problems on the OL.

Actually, the Titans were 3 feet from potentially tying (assuming they made the extra point and didn't successfully convert a 2-point attempt, which they wouldn't have) the Rams in the Super Bowl (the final score was 23-16). A lot of people thought they were a yard away from tying it (even in the movie "Castaway," Helen Hunt's character tells Tom Hanks' character that the Titans almost won the game). I remember finding it funny that Jeff Fisher's rallying cry for the following year was "1 more yard."

 

And I agree that healthy backup tackles were better than injured starting tackles. But that's not saying a whole lot. The O-line situation was bad going into the game got worse during it, and is the reason why I don't think the Bills would have gotten much further had they won that game.

[Albany,n.y.]

The simple answer is there is no way the Bills would have made it to the Super Bowl with Rob Johnson at QB. I did a study of RJ's career a few years ago & reached one indisputable conclusion-Rob Johnson's best games were off long periods where he didn't play. They came after either a return from a benching or an injury, or after a bye week. There was no way Rob Johnson was going to play 3 or 4 consecutive weeks at a level needed to advance in the playoffs. You can look it up, the more Rob Johnson played, the worse he got. He was similar to a racehorse who performs best with a lot of spacing between races.

[Jerry Jabber]

In 1998 the defense was 16th in points allowed while the offense was 7th in scoring. In 1999 the defense was 2nd in points allowed while the offense was 16th in scoring. In 2000, the defense was 18th in scoring and the offense was 20th in scoring. The offense slipped badly from 1998 to 1999, while the defense did the opposite, then it dropped off a cliff in 2000 and especially 2001. The decrease in scoring from 1998 to 1999 was a cause for alarm, and a testament to the dominance of the defense. Hence the reason for the move to RJ after his performance against the playoff-bound Colts. And when he left the field against the Titans (who were undefeated and allowing 16.4 PPG at home that year) in that playoff game, the Bills had the lead, only to see it lost by the ST's. Whose fault is that?

 

If the decision had to have been made to switch QB's, it should have been done by week 8 at the very latest, not going into the playoffs. With the O-line being used to Flutie's snap count, there were many false start penalties, which backed up the offense into the endzone and the Titans got a sack on Johnson. Johnson was good at playing great for 1 game, then sucking for a bunch more. Johnson sucked for 58 minutes of the game vs the Titans. His fumble deep on our side of the field, was turned into a TD by the Titans offense on the next drive. So, between his fumble & sack in the endzone, he was responsible for 9 points against the Bills. Even Wade Phillips said on the Top 10 QB controversies "In Hindsight, Doug would have won us the game." Not only are fans saying it was the wrong decision, but NFL reporters and the horses mouth himself Wade Phillips have said it was the wrong decision. Ralph & Wade got greedy at the wrong time, they wanted more points out of the offense, but were too stupid to realize it was the absolute worst time to make the decision.

[Jerry Jabber]

The simple answer is there is no way the Bills would have made it to the Super Bowl with Rob Johnson at QB. I did a study of RJ's career a few years ago & reached one indisputable conclusion-Rob Johnson's best games were off long periods where he didn't play. They came after either a return from a benching or an injury, or after a bye week. There was no way Rob Johnson was going to play 3 or 4 consecutive weeks at a level needed to advance in the playoffs. You can look it up, the more Rob Johnson played, the worse he got. He was similar to a racehorse who performs best with a lot of spacing between races.

 

Thank you!! That's what I've been saying all along, he plays great for 1 game, then sucks for a bunch of games in a row. But, guys like Doc don't want to hear that. They're Flutie bashers and are mad that when Flutie was the starting QB, he wasn't lighting defenses up on a weekly basis. These bashers weren't satisfied with a win, they wanted blowouts. They're also the same people that wanted Kelly to retire during his last few years as a Bill.

[Doc]

If the decision had to have been made to switch QB's, it should have been done by week 8 at the very latest, not going into the playoffs. With the O-line being used to Flutie's snap count, there were many false start penalties, which backed up the offense into the endzone and the Titans got a sack on Johnson. Johnson was good at playing great for 1 game, then sucking for a bunch more. Johnson sucked for 58 minutes of the game vs the Titans. His fumble deep on our side of the field, was turned into a TD by the Titans offense on the next drive. So, between his fumble & sack in the endzone, he was responsible for 9 points against the Bills. Even Wade Phillips said on the Top 10 QB controversies "In Hindsight, Doug would have won us the game." Not only are fans saying it was the wrong decision, but NFL reporters and the horses mouth himself Wade Phillips have said it was the wrong decision. Ralph & Wade got greedy at the wrong time, they wanted more points out of the offense, but were too stupid to realize it was the absolute worst time to make the decision.

I don't disagree that the decision should have been made earlier. But again in that playoff game, RJ left the field with the lead, only to see the ST's lose the game. Blaming RJ is like blaming Flutie for losing to the Dols in the playoffs the year before, because he got sacked and fumbled on the last play of the game.