Question about 90's Bills

[Buftex]

24 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

This “ outcoached”line of thinking is often cited as fact, but I don’t believe BP or BB made a tackle that day or made the Bills defenders miss so many.The late Bill Walsh opined that the Bills lost on clock management during the final drive, a fair point without preconceived notions of the Bills superiority.  One thing for sure ( as you imply here) is that the Bills and Giants were far more evenly matched than most Bills fans would admit. Their late season game at NY showed this. While both teams lost their starting QB in that game, it still was a down to the wire win for the Bills. If any NFC team was built to sustain an injury to their starting QB, it was the G Men. They disposed of the defending SB champ fortyniners on the road and turned it into a low scoring slugfest. They also knocked Montana out in the process. We as fans were on a high after the blowout of the Raiders, but the Giants style was the perfect antidote to the no huddle fast break Bills. Sure, there were some head scratching decisions made by the Bills staff that day ( Thurman’s lack of carries being the main one) but the game was way more of a physical undressing of the Bills than a coaching chess match. The Bills defense took one on the chin in SB XXV. It was no surprise that they coveted Ted Washington out of Louisville in the ‘91 draft. Polian waited it out and missed out on Washington by just one pick when he went to SF. Perhaps that draft choice would have helped the Bills win one of those next three Superbowls. 

I think the Bills were outcoached in that game, in the sense that they played right into the Giants defensive gameplan, and never really adjusted to it.  The Giants in the Super Bowl, were hell bent on taking Reed and Lofton out of the game....as a result, Thurman had room to do his thing.  The Bills/Kelly didn't recognize that they would have likely fared better if they ran the ball more than they did.  It was like the Bills were too slow to see what was happening in front of them.  The fact that the game came down to the final play is just a testament, in my opinion, as to how good the Bills team really was...they let a less talented Giants team dictate the game.

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I think the Bills were outcoached in that game, in the sense that they played right into the Giants defensive gameplan, and never really adjusted to it.  The Giants in the Super Bowl, were hell bent on taking Reed and Lofton out of the game....as a result, Thurman had room to do his thing.  The Bills/Kelly didn't recognize that they would have likely fared better if they ran the ball more than they did.  It was like the Bills were too slow to see what was happening in front of them.  The fact that the game came down to the final play is just a testament, in my opinion, as to how good the Bills team really was...they let a less talented Giants team dictate the game.

Agreed.  They set their D up to minimize our passing game.  And because of that they were able to dominate TOP.  We should have ran TT and Davis all night long.

[Fadingpain]

6 hours ago, Seanbillsfan2206 said:

We got out coached in the first Super Bowl. Period 

I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the Giants were putting as few as TWO defensive lineman on the LOS and doing everything they could to take away our fast passing attack.

 

They were daring us to run, and we were a hell of a good running team with a dominant O line and Thurman and my man Kenneth Davis.

 

Right away we should have said "Oh you want to play it that way, huh?"  And rammed the ball down their throats.  

 

When they compensated to stop that, THEN you hit them with the passing attack but without 6 or 7 DBs flying all around the field. 

 

Our coaching staff including Marv Levy, simply put, was not good enough to operate on that kind of level.

 

Totally alter what we had been doing and go with the flow as needed to win on the spur of the moment. 

 

F-ing BB and Parcells were.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Fadingpain

[The Jokeman]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

They should have won the first one but Parcells and Belichick way out coached our guys.  The other three they lost to much better teams.

I disagree with your second statement. IMHO we lost the last Super Bowl because we didn't try to put the game out of reach before the 1st half. 

[Fadingpain]

5 hours ago, BillsPride12 said:

My little league football coach used to always say after a bad loss..."well the only positive we can take from this one is we lost as a team" and I've always thought that summed up Super Bowl 25 in a nutshell.  As a team so many guys contributed to losing that game it really wasn't fair Norwood became the scapegoat.  It's also crazy that for as many things that went wrong for the Bills in that game that they still had a chance to win it at the end.  

Play the game four more times for a total of five, and we win four of them! 

 

We were the better team.

 

The Redskins were absolutely the better team in the second SB.

 

The 2 Cowboys? Hard to say; we so badly underperformed/choked in both of them (at different times in different ways) that it is hard to get a good gauge.  The Dallas team at that time was very good, no doubt.

 

 

6 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

I disagree with your second statement. IMHO we lost the last Super Bowl because we didn't try to put the game out of reach before the 1st half. 

I think most fans agree we were the better team in 1, definitely NOT the better team in 2, and then the two cowboy games are more of a toss-up with varying opinion.  I still think the 2 teams in those last two superbowls were pretty even and we could have won both of them if we had not choked and cracked, or if we did not have it in our collective team head that we could not win the big one.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, BillsPride12 said:

My little league football coach used to always say after a bad loss..."well the only positive we can take from this one is we lost as a team" and I've always thought that summed up Super Bowl 25 in a nutshell.  As a team so many guys contributed to losing that game it really wasn't fair Norwood became the scapegoat.  It's also crazy that for as many things that went wrong for the Bills in that game that they still had a chance to win it at the end.  

We definitely lost as a team; the FG miss at the end is just the most obvious thing to put your finger on so it stands out.

 

I think most Bills fans understand this and ironically, hold no grudges against Norwood.  "Ironically" because the game has been come to be known as "wide right" or the game of the missed FG but no one, at least in Buffalo, really views it in that way.

 

That's probably because we have a better understanding of the team/game and view it with more nuance and complexity than your average national media pundit.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Fadingpain

[Boatdrinks]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Agreed.  They set their D up to minimize our passing game.  And because of that they were able to dominate TOP.  We should have ran TT and Davis all night long.

While their strategy on D to try to minimize the Bills passing attack was a sensible one, it didn’t swing the TOP in their favor. The Bills defense was largely putrid that day, conceding long drives mostly on the ground and missing tackles on short passes. The TOP discrepancy was mostly on them, as the Bills rarely won that stat even when the offense was clicking on all cylinders. They usu ran a slight deficit in TOP, but 40 minutes of posession for the Giants offense was a defensive failure. You are correct that the initial strategy of the Giants D should have been easily countered by Marchibroda and Co. Parcells and BB did the only thing they could do; pretty much begging the Bills to run and thusly slowing the game down. The Bills unfortunately failed to oblige them. Thurman should have had 30 carries or more. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

What's crazy and amazing is the fact that either the Bills or 49ers had made it to the Super Bowl in 7 consectutive seasons, yet never faced off in one. And both teams had advanced to the conference championship in 6 of those 7 seasons. As someone mentioned earlier, those two teams were very similar and really evenly matched.

[Billsfanatic8989]

Looking at old footage, I feel as though the Bill's weren't urgent enough on the last drive in SB 25. Maybe if they had more urgency, it would've been an easier FG to make for Norwood.

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

I don't think this is a one dimensional question. I would assume that most people probably had moments during the offseason, etc. in which they felt like they'd rather not go back. I'd also assume that when the AFC Championship Game came around, those same people were all in. That was my experience anyways.

[Scorp83]

20 hours ago, Billsfanatic8989 said:

By the 92 season, as a fan, did you not want the Bill's to get back to the SB? Mainly because you knew they were unlikely to beat the 49ers or Cowboys, and it was too tough to take? I know it sounds crazy. But Marv Levy said fans would come up to him and plead that they not get back to the SB. Mostly because they didn't have a great shot of winning, and they ( Fans) couldn't deal with more dissapointments.

 

Furthermore, how did you feel about their chances going into the SB's against the Redskins & Cowboys (X2)?

I was happy to make all 4... but that last SB against the Cowgirls... I knew we wasn't ready, that team was on something else. 

 

We should have beat the G-men & Skins... tho

[ExiledInIllinois]

20 hours ago, Kwai San said:

Well they did shoot themselves in the foot in Miami against the G I Ants......going out and partying until the wee hours didn't help their cause at all.  Thurman showed up......had Norwide made that kick and lets face it the dude was $$MONEY$$ all season we would all be singing a diff tune.....dems da breaks.  I liked the fact the Bills kept showing up....it was awesome to say yup MY team is back in the SB and YOURS isn't!!!

It was the Big Sombrero in Tampa.  Not Miami.

[Boatdrinks]

4 hours ago, Billsfanatic8989 said:

Looking at old footage, I feel as though the Bill's weren't urgent enough on the last drive in SB 25. Maybe if they had more urgency, it would've been an easier FG to make for Norwood.

 

 

That was Bill Walsh’s opinion on the final drive as well. He felt that their clock management cost them the win. It’s a fair point. 

[without a drought]

This is why I was pissed that they ended the drought last year with no shot of winning the Super Bowl.

 

If you can win it all, you may as well go 0-16. If you aren't going to win the game,  I'd rather have them shutout. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, The Drought said:

This is why I was pissed that they ended the drought last year with no shot of winning the Super Bowl.

 

If you can win it all, you may as well go 0-16. If you aren't going to win the game,  I'd rather have them shutout. 

With the difficulty ( and rarity ) of winning a Super Bowl considered, this “feast or famine” type of football you describe seems unenjoyable at best. It would be a lot of 0-16 crappy football seasons to endure for an occaisional championship. 

[without a drought]

14 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

With the difficulty ( and rarity ) of winning a Super Bowl considered, this “feast or famine” type of football you describe seems unenjoyable at best. It would be a lot of 0-16 crappy football seasons to endure for an occaisional championship. 

Yes, just as ridiculous as the premise of this thread.

[PromoTheRobot]

On 7/28/2018 at 10:36 PM, Billsfanatic8989 said:

By the 92 season, as a fan, did you not want the Bill's to get back to the SB? Mainly because you knew they were unlikely to beat the 49ers or Cowboys, and it was too tough to take? I know it sounds crazy. But Marv Levy said fans would come up to him and plead that they not get back to the SB. Mostly because they didn't have a great shot of winning, and they ( Fans) couldn't deal with more dissapointments.

 

Furthermore, how did you feel about their chances going into the SB's against the Redskins & Cowboys (X2)?

 

I know playoff games has trouble selling out by '92.

[RoyBatty is alive]

On 7/28/2018 at 11:30 PM, purple haze said:

Were you of age when the Bills had consecutive 2-14 seasons?  There was never a time I didn't want the Bills in the Super Bowl.  The alternative

is what was unbearable.  And those Bills teams did very well against NFC opponents, in general, during the Super Bowl years, so it wasn't unlikely they

would beat Dallas or San Francisco.  The Bills beat both of those teams in the regular season as well as the Giants; on the road at that.

 

Super Bowl XXV, the Bills gave away.

Super Bowl XXVI, the Bills didn't have their minds right, (thought they could just show up and win) but still had chances to come back in that game.

Super Bowl XXVII, Kelly got hurt, and the Bills were sloppy with the ball.  The Cowboys took advantage.

Super Bowl XXVIII, The Bills ran out of gas in the second half, and again, were sloppy with the rock.

 

Interesting, here are my "takes"

 

XXV  Bills were outcoached, badly including Marv Levy letting players party too much, they were celebrating before they ever played the game

XXVI Washington was the better team that year AND the refs letting our WRs get killed, it was ridiculous

XXVII Kelly getting hurt wouldn't have mattered, we imploded and they were the better team

XXVIII Dallas was better but that game was OVER when Thurman dropped the ball and they scored, we were on a roll, we were going to have a 14-0 lead in the 3rd, after that drop it was a tie game and it was psychologically over.  Dallas came in with the attitude all we have to do is show up, like the Bills did in XXV.   I totally believe we would have one that game without that mistake.

[Your Brown Eye]

50 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

Interesting, here are my "takes"

 

XXVIII Dallas was better but that game was OVER when Thurman dropped the ball and they scored, we were on a roll, we were going to have a 14-0 lead in the 3rd, after that drop it was a tie game and it was psychologically over.  Dallas came in with the attitude all we have to do is show up, like the Bills did in XXV.   I totally believe we would have one that game without that mistake.

 

It was 13-6 at halftime, how would the Bills have a 14-0 lead in the 3rd?

 

Someone might want to brush up on what really happened in Super Bowl 28

[RoyBatty is alive]

48 minutes ago, Your Brown Eye said:

 

It was 13-6 at halftime, how would the Bills have a 14-0 lead in the 3rd?

 

Someone might want to brush up on what really happened in Super Bowl 28

i meant a 14 point lead, not 14-0 but my math was off would have been a 13 pt lead

[blacklabel]

Nah, as a kid I wanted to see them at least win one, didn't care how many they went to and lost, I felt like, as long as they win one, it's worth it.

 

vs. the Giants they never adjusted and took advantage of the fact that the Giants D was putting only three, sometimes two, DL on the line which was an invitation to run and Thurman was on that game. Had they kept handing him the ball he would've chewed them up and then when they went to adjust to stop the run, that's when Kelly could've shifted it into overdrive with the no-huddle and start slinging it. Instead, they stuck to their guns and it just didn't fall their way. And while Norwood had a good season, the Bills special teams coach at that time said that Scott had two other FG attempts (just under 40 yards) on grass during the regular season that he missed. His 47-yard attempt was his longest try on grass for that season. 

 

vs. Washington they came in unfocused and unprepared and got outplayed in the first half. They got things rolling in the second half but ran out of time.

 

vs. Dallas they actually led early on after a great opening drive but then they gave up a fumble return for a TD, Michael Irvin went ham in the 2nd quarter and Kelly got knocked clear out of the game. They gave up another fumble return for a TD later in the game  but even though it was 31-17 at the start of the fourth, they still were only down by two scores and had a chance. They just completely imploded in the fourth.

 

vs. Dallas again they led at halftime and then came out and Thurman had that fumble and after that they were shot. It's like as soon as one bad play and a little adversity hit them, they all collectively felt like, "Here we go again" and just couldn't get their heads straight. 

 

For whatever reason, it just didn't happen for them. I've always joked that the four-straight run in the 90s was the good karma we got as fans and the 17-year drought was the payback kind of karma.