Pats: Spy In The East

[OJ's Glove]

That's the Rick Reilly angle on things, i.e. that the Bills were overrated because the AFC stunk, failing to mention that the Bills owned the NFC during the regular season.  Not like football is any less atrociously played now.

403574[/snapback]

 

In saying the AFC "stunk", the relevant point is that there were several top teams in the NFC that were better than the best AFC team (Buffalo), and they had to get through each other to get to the SB. Whether the Bills had a good record against the NFC in the regular season might not matter a whit - depends on which teams they played, when, and where.

 

When one conference "dominates" another, the overall interconference record can be very misleading. The fact that the NFC won the SB for thirteen straight years was not a statistical blip. There were good reasons behind it. That's what Reilly means when he says the AFC "stunk".

[MadBuffaloDisease]

In saying the AFC "stunk", the relevant point is that there were several top teams in the NFC that were better than the best AFC team (Buffalo), and they had to get through each other to get to the SB. Whether the Bills had a good record against the NFC in the regular season might not matter a whit - depends on which teams they played, when, and where.

At best what you've posted is pure conjecture. At worst it's disproven by the Bills having a winning record against the NFC during that timeperiod, regardless of the teams, even though the Bills ended up playing the NFC East, the best conference in the NFC, almost every year during that time.

[SDS]

In 2 of 4 SB years - the Bills played the NFCE. They were 7-1 against them with their only loss being to Washington in 1990 the last game of the season.

 

They were 7-1 the other 2 years losing only to Detroit on the l;ast game of the 1991 season.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I'd be hard-pressed to name even ONE team outside of the SB winner who could have beaten the Bills in the SB, much less "several." I also think that in 1991, the Oilers could have beaten the Redskins in the SB. But that's all as much speculation as the Raiders beating the Rams in 2001 had the "tuck" not happened, or the Colts beating the Panthers in 2003 if not for all the missed/ignored defensive interferences.

[OJ's Glove]

For thirteen straight years, the team that survived the NFC playoff tournament beat the AFC team in the Super Bowl. This was often a severe beating, and close games were somewhat rare.

 

That ain't conjecture. Are you telling me it's just dumb luck? The one time the AFC was supposed to win against the NFC (XXV) according to Vegas, they STILL couldn't do it.

 

What are your conclusions about why that is the case? This streak lasted a long time and involved several teams. If the Dolphins, Pats, Broncos, Bills, Chargers, Bengals and Steelers couldn't beat the NFC even once during that time, it definitely means something. Don't tell me it means nothing.

 

The NFC team was often a double-digit favorite during that time, and they often covered the spread easily. That's dominance of one conference over another involving the top teams, something overall interconference records won't show.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

For thirteen straight years, the team that survived the NFC playoff tournament beat the AFC team in the Super Bowl. This was often a severe beating, and close games were somewhat rare.

 

That ain't conjecture. Are you telling me it's just dumb luck? The one time the AFC was supposed to win against the NFC (XXV) according to Vegas, they STILL couldn't do it.

 

What are your conclusions about why that is the case? This streak lasted a long time and involved several teams. If the Dolphins, Pats, Broncos, Bills, Chargers, Bengals and Steelers couldn't beat the NFC even once during that time, it definitely means something. Don't tell me it means nothing.

 

The NFC team was often a double-digit favorite during that time, and they often covered the spread easily. That's dominance of one conference over another involving the top teams, something overall interconference records won't show.

So your best argument involves Vegas odds and 13 years of the NFC winning the SB? Sorry but that IS total conjecture. Again, the Bills had a great record against the NFC during that timeperiod (in fact they beat the Giants IN Jersey in 1990 during the regular season, and the Cowboys during the regular season in 1993). And AT BEST I'd say the 49'ers in 1992 or 1993 MIGHT have been able to beat the Bills in the SB, but no one else in the NFC during those 4 years. The Lions weren't going to do it in 1991, and after Montana got hurt in the NFCCG in 1990, there was no WAY the 49'ers were going to be able to do it. So again, anything more on this subject is PURE conjecture, conjured up by Reilly, a guy so brilliant he insulted himself when he said that alliterative names (Buffalo Bills, Jax Jaguars, Rick Reilly) were annoying.

[cromagnum]

I understand my being welcomed to the site, and asked if there is a similar thread as a td drink satans blood. My responce being how the pat's were cellar dwellers,being blasted in the games and the local media quickly reporting the outcome and showing a half empty schafer, foxboro stadium with some fan's with bag's on their head's. Now somehow had turned into a interesting argument?Anyway it's appropiate that its my screen name because to find amusement in a mangled paragraph, and a separate argument makes me want to say unga bunga!!!!

[EC-Bills]

I understand my being welcomed to the site, and asked if there is a similar thread as a td drink satans blood. My responce being how the pat's were cellar dwellers,being blasted in the games and the local media quickly reporting the outcome and showing a half empty schafer, foxboro stadium with some fan's with bag's on their head's. Now somehow had turned into a interesting argument?Anyway it's appropiate that its my screen name because to find amusement in a mangled paragraph, and a separate argument makes me want to say unga bunga!!!!

404383[/snapback]

 

Like I said before, welcome aboard

[OJ's Glove]

So you're basically telling me that the NFC winning 13 SB in a row is nothing but a statistical anomaly, says absolutely nothing about any difference or perceived difference between the conferences, and can be chalked up to luck.

 

You're telling me that the Bills, who you claim were at the very least the second best team in football between 1990 and 1993, managed to get beat soundly three times, and still managed to lose a close game to a team that most people expected them to beat?

 

We aren't just talking about the Bills here, either. We're talking about every single AFC Champ for 13 years straight.

 

Former player Steve DeOssie, who played for Parcells' Giants in the 80's, claims he and his teammates used to consider a game against an AFC team to be like a "week off". This didn't mean they would automatically win or automatically be more talented than the team they were playing. But they did feel that AFC teams in general played more of a finesse game and were less physical both at the line of scrimmage and in the overall game. Even if they lost the game, they nearly always felt they wouldn't be hit as hard when playing an AFC opponent. I'm not making this up, he's talked about it regularly when the subject comes up.

 

I tend to think this made a difference at playoff time, when the eventual NFC Champ most likely played a more physical style than the AFC Champ, and also was more likely to have to get past very physical competition during the conference playoffs. I'm not the only person to ever bring this up.

 

 

Perhaps you have another theory about it, or perhaps you want to insist that it's meaningless. I'm not willing to simply dismiss it as a statistical blip, and say that the Bills and every other AFC Champ just had a bad day 13 times in a row.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

So you're basically telling me that the NFC winning 13 SB in a row is nothing but a statistical anomaly, says absolutely nothing about any difference or perceived difference between the conferences, and can be chalked up to luck.

Nowhere did I say that. Yes the NFC owned the AFC during that 13-year period and the Bills lost to the best team in the NFC during their 4-year SB run. However to make the claim that a 13-year period of dominance over the AFC means that "several NFC teams" could have beaten the Bills in the SB those years is pure conjecture, and wrong actually.

You're telling me that the Bills, who you claim were at the very least the second best team in football between 1990 and 1993, managed to get beat soundly three times, and still managed to lose a close game to a team that most people expected them to beat?

You know WHY the Bills were expected to beat the Giants in the SB? Because earlier that season they beat them by a FG IN Jersey. Throw in the neutral site, their dismantling of the Raiders, and there you have the -TD line. And the Bills lost by a FG because, unlike the Pats in 2001, the Bills' kicker couldn't (not that I expected him to) make a 47-yard FG.

Former player Steve DeOssie, who played for Parcells' Giants in the 80's, claims he and his teammates used to consider a game against an AFC team to be like a "week off". This didn't mean they would automatically win or automatically be more talented than the team they were playing. But they did feel that AFC teams in general played more of a finesse game and were less physical both at the line of scrimmage and in the overall game. Even if they lost the game, they nearly always felt they wouldn't be hit as hard when playing an AFC opponent. I'm not making this up, he's talked about it regularly when the subject comes up.

DeOssie has taken one too many hits to the head and slobbers more than he makes good points. I feel like marrying my sister (not that I have one) after watching him on NESN. But what he said is what's called a generalization. It probably applied to the majority of AFC teams, but again seeing as how the Bills beat them IN Jersey, it didn't apply to all. But maybe that was their excuse for losing that game?

I tend to think this made a difference at playoff time, when the eventual NFC Champ most likely played a more physical style than the AFC Champ, and also was more likely to have to get past very physical competition during the conference playoffs. I'm not the only person to ever bring this up.

Maybe that applied for other years. Again as I said, the only team I think that MIGHT have had a chance to beat the Bills in the SB outside of the eventual SB winners was the 49'ers in 1992 and 1993. However seeing as how the Bills beat the 49'ers in SF during the regular season in 1992 (the "no punt" game), taken along with the Bills beating the Giants during the regular season in 1990 and the Cowboys during the 1993 regular season, that's pure conjecture if not disproven by evidence to the contrary. But if you can think of other NFC teams during that timeperiod who you think could have beaten the Bills in the SB as well (the 1990 49'ers after losing Montana in the NFCCG? The Lions in 1991?), let me hear it.

[OJ's Glove]

Let's put it this way. What is your explanation for the Bills managing to play the NFC well in the regular season yet get blown out in the SB? Why should this happen, and happen in very similar fashion (with few exceptions) to every other AFC Champ during that same period? I'm gathering you think there's some reason for it, but you seem to discount DeOssie's idea without substituting one of your own. DeOssie isn't just speaking for himself, but he claims his Giants teammates felt the same way, not to mention players he knew on other teams, including the Redskins and 49ers. Are all these guys imagining it?

 

I understand the general reason many people give as to why Super Bowls are more likely to be lopsided than other games. But this doesn't explain why the NFC manages to be on the winning side every damned time, including three lopsided times when you claim the Bills were plenty competitive with the best the NFC had to offer.

 

Another example is the Patriots playing the Bears at Soldier Field in 1985. The Bears won, but only won by 13 points on their home field. The Bears then whipped NE by 36 points at a neutral site in SBXX. Again, playing the other conference in a competitive manner during the regular season didn't seem to translate to the post season. I'm curious why this is, and general ideas about SB blowouts don't seem to explain why the NFC always managed to win. That's why I find Deossie's idea about the difference in attitude between the confrences to be at least somewhat compelling, considering he played on some of those teams. It makes sense to me that being more physical overall would seem to matter more in the postseason when the two conference winners finally face off.

 

I'm curious what you think about it, without limiting the discussion to just the Bills. It's pretty obvious to me there was some larger trend going on.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I'm curious what you think about it, without limiting the discussion to just the Bills. It's pretty obvious to me there was some larger trend going on.

Again, I cannot and will not speak for the other AFC teams. The Bills were the most dominant AFC team/champ during that 13-year run, so I'm saying that, while what you say MAY have held true for other AFC champs, one can't say that it applies to the Bills. Again the 49'ers in 1990 lost Montana in the NFCCG so there was no WAY IN HELL they would have beaten the Bills. And the Lions fluked their way to the NFCCG in 1991, so if you think THEY had a shot, you're seriously deluded. And again the 49'ers in 1992 and 1993 MIGHT have been able to beat the Bills. But even if that were true, and that's a hard thing to prove, as it stands that is several teams short of "several." So I'd be curious to hear WHAT teams specifically could have beaten the Bills in those years. I'm guessing all of the NFC divisional round losers, right? Maybe some of the Wildcard losers as well? Maybe even every team in the NFC playoffs?

[OJ's Glove]

Again, you are correct in saying this is all conjecture. In the real world, the Bills only played one team, the team that happened to survive the NFC playoffs. We'll never know what would happen if another team had managed to win the NFC in that period.

 

The point I'm making is that Reilly's opinion that the AFC "stunk" is directly related to their performances in the Super Bowl, which was generally horrendous during that time - even by the Bills who dominated the conference. They only played one close game out of four and lost it. I don't think it matters much what happened in regular season interconference play, because all bets seemed to be off when it came to the Super Bowl. The post season seemed to have a different dynamic going on.

 

No matter which NFC team made it, it was usually a slaughter. Bears, Giants, 49ers, Redskins, Cowboys, it didn't matter. I would have bet money on the NFC every time during that period, no matter who it was. The trend was pretty strong. There has to be a reason for it, because the Bills were talented but looked bad three out of four times. They essentially looked like nearly every other AFC champ during that time.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

The Cowboys were a very young team in 1992 and 1993. So it's logical to say that they had more staying power based on youth. In 1991, the Redskins came out of nowhere to dominate everyone, in a weaker-than-usual NFC (as evidenced by the Lions making it to the NFCCG). And the Bills were a slightly missed FG away from winning the 1990 SB. Again I don't see how any team outside of the 49'ers might have had a chance to beat the Bills any of those 4 years, regardless of how the SB's may have appeared in relation to the other ones.

[PromoTheRobot]

OJ's Glove, Hollywood, and the rest of you Patsy trolls...Did you all get kicked off the Pats board? Don't your moms need you to clean your garages, or something?

 

PTR

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Why the hostility?

[BRH]

Why the hostility?

404810[/snapback]

Probably because some of your brethren are so insecure about their narrow margins of victory in the recent SBs that they have to expend multiple paragraphs of hot air in denigrating another team's success.

[OJ's Glove]

The Cowboys were a very young team in 1992 and 1993.  So it's logical to say that they had more staying power based on youth.  In 1991, the Redskins came out of nowhere to dominate everyone, in a weaker-than-usual NFC (as evidenced by the Lions making it to the NFCCG).  And the Bills were a slightly missed FG away from winning the 1990 SB.  Again I don't see how any team outside of the 49'ers might have had a chance to beat the Bills any of those 4 years, regardless of how the SB's may have appeared in relation to the other ones.

404762[/snapback]

 

Again, it's conjecture on your side, too. We just don't know. Saying the Bills would have beaten any other NFC team except for the team they actually played seems a bit like whistling-past-the-graveyard reasoning.

 

All I know is the NFC trend was extremely strong, so strong that most of the SB's were blowouts, and the best chance the AFC had to break the streak (1990), they still couldn't do it. As an AFC guy, I hated seeing the other conference win so many years in a row, but all I can do is tip my cap.

 

I would have liked any NFC team that happened to survive the NFC playoffs against the Bills, and not because the Bills were lousy. When you're running a streak like that, it's smart money to bet that the streak will continue, even though all streaks eventually end. The streak continued for a long time and involved a myriad of different teams on both sides. There was something that gave the NFC winner a huge advantage in the Super Bowl during those 13 straight years. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but it held sway for a long time.

 

I personally think DeOssie's claim sounds reasonable.

[BRH]

Again, it's conjecture on your side, too. We just don't know. Saying the Bills would have beaten any other NFC team except for the team they actually played seems a bit like whistling-past-the-graveyard reasoning.

 

All I know is the NFC trend was extremely strong, so strong that most of the SB's were blowouts, and the best chance the AFC had to break the streak (1990), they still couldn't do it. As an AFC guy, I hated seeing the other conference win so many years in a row, but all I can do is tip my cap.

 

I would have liked any NFC team that happened to survive the NFC playoffs against the Bills, and not because the Bills were lousy. When you're running a streak like that, it's smart money to bet that the streak will continue, even though all streaks eventually end. The streak continued for a long time and involved a myriad of different teams on both sides. There was something that gave the NFC winner a huge advantage in the Super Bowl during those 13 straight years. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but it held sway for a long time.

 

I personally think DeOssie's claim sounds reasonable.

404858[/snapback]

See my post immediately above yours.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Again, it's conjecture on your side, too. We just don't know. Saying the Bills would have beaten any other NFC team except for the team they actually played seems a bit like whistling-past-the-graveyard reasoning.

 

All I know is the NFC trend was extremely strong, so strong that most of the SB's were blowouts, and the best chance the AFC had to break the streak (1990), they still couldn't do it. As an AFC guy, I hated seeing the other conference win so many years in a row, but all I can do is tip my cap.

 

I would have liked any NFC team that happened to survive the NFC playoffs against the Bills, and not because the Bills were lousy. When you're running a streak like that, it's smart money to bet that the streak will continue, even though all streaks eventually end. The streak continued for a long time and involved a myriad of different teams on both sides. There was something that gave the NFC winner a huge advantage in the Super Bowl during those 13 straight years. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but it held sway for a long time.

Again, since the AFC champ never played the loser of the NFCCG, much less any other team in the NFC playoffs anytime during those 13 years, it's pure conjecture to say that ANY other team outside of the SB winner would have won the SB. There's more to prove on your side than mine and when your best argument involves trends, suppositions and hypotheticals without actual occurrences, once again it's all conjecture. And still I'd like to hear from YOU what NFC teams from 1990-1993 could have beaten the Bills in the SB. You said "several" and I want to hear them. I already spotted you the 49'ers.

I personally think DeOssie's claim sounds reasonable.

I've seen enough of DeOssie to know he's a blowhard. Prior to one of the Pats-Bills games a couple years ago, he made the claim that the current Pats would have beaten the Bills of the early 90's. That told me all I needed to know about DeOssie. The play in the AFC, as well as the NFL, is a FAR cry from even the early 90's. And I already said that Reilly is a fool as evidenced by insulting himself when talking about alliteration.