smokinandjokin Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 We always said that as history looked back on the early 90's Bills, their achievements would look remarkable once people got over the stigma of "four straight Super Bowl losses." Well, it's true. Football people obviously respect what those squads were able to do, as evidenced by the coach and QB being elected to the Hall of Fame, with the RB and DE soon to follow. Even more so, a current stat reiterates how resilient Marv and those Bills teams were. For the past five years, the team that has lost the Super Bowl has missed the playoffs. Starting with the 2001 season, the NYG, St Louis, Oakland, Carolina, and Philly have all missed the playoffs after going down in the Super Bowl. This year, Seattle will probably end that streak, but it speaks volumes about the 1990-93 Bills nonetheless. Berman mentioned it during the Swami's 2-minute drill on Sportscenter- he noted the current trend and then said how it was all the more remarkable the way the Bills were able to pull themselves off the mat time and again. Also, another interesting stat that could brighten the outlook for this season: In each of the previous nine seasons, the playoff field included at least five teams that didn't qualify for the postseason the previous year. That's nearly half of the 12 teams each year that did not qualify in the previous season. I'm not anticipating a return to the playoffs this year for the Bills, but this stat shows that it certainly wouldn't be out of the question. The longer they can hover around .500, the longer they will stay in the hunt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 And with regard to the superbowl teams, there are some reporters who like to say how the AFC just plain sucked and we were totally overrated anyway. Well not only did we have a pretty solid record against NFC teams, but we beat guys like Mario, Elway, and Montana in order to get back to the show each year. Those were *great* teams....nobody can take that away from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJ's Glove Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 And with regard to the superbowl teams, there are some reporters who like to say how the AFC just plain sucked and we were totally overrated anyway. Well not only did we have a pretty solid record against NFC teams, but we beat guys like Mario, Elway, and Montana in order to get back to the show each year. Those were *great* teams....nobody can take that away from us. 764974[/snapback] Agreed, but throughout the period of NFC dominance, there were good AFC teams that were able to beat good NFC teams in the regular season. That always happened. There has to be a tangible reason the NFC won 13 in a row. It's not coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Agreed, but throughout the period of NFC dominance, there were good AFC teams that were able to beat good NFC teams in the regular season. That always happened. There has to be a tangible reason the NFC won 13 in a row. It's not coincidental. 765360[/snapback] True. And I actually feel we lost to the best team in three out of the four SBs, but we beat the Giants in 1990 WITH Simms during the regular season, we just couldn't get it done come January. I just think a lot of writers come off like the NFC was just this dominant conference top to bottom and we were totally overrated. I don't buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I 90 Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 There has to be a tangible reason the NFC won 13 in a row. It's not coincidental. 765360[/snapback] A statistical anomaly. It may take me a thousand years to prove it. It is still more inconcievable to me that the Bills could win four AFC championships (punching a hole into the careers of some great AFC players) than it is that they could lose four straight Super Bowls. If there was a team that was going to end the run of 13, it was them. Weak or fragile they were not. Nutting up every year after disappointment made them one of the all time greats. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 smokinandjokin - great avatar and post, my friend... It's amazing what a little hard work, belief in the greater good and mental toughness can do. Marv is an rare guy and a true throwback to a different era. And the great thing is with Marv and Jauron here, I have nothing but optimisim for this year's Bills. And it's only going to get better over the next few years. Get ready everyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17 Josh Allen Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I find it funny that the so called football experts forget the bills were had 14 wins and 2 losses from 1990 to 1993 against the NFC during those superbowl runs They also won games AT Dallas, 49ers, NY Giants, Philly the 4 power house teams of that era 1990 to 1993 the only 2 nfc games they lost from 1990 to 1993 were meaningless end of the season games against the skins and detriot. So 14 wins and 2 losses against the NFC was a awesome record and is forgotten by football expets who thought the NFC was all that Mickey In Rochester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike formerly from Florida Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I find it funny that the so called football experts forget the bills were had 14 wins and 2 losses from 1990 to 1993 against the NFC during those superbowl runs They also won games AT Dallas, 49ers, NY Giants, Philly the 4 power house teams of that era 1990 to 1993 the only 2 nfc games they lost from 1990 to 1993 were meaningless end of the season games against the skins and detriot. So 14 wins and 2 losses against the NFC was a awesome record and is forgotten by football expets who thought the NFC was all that Mickey In Rochester 765576[/snapback] We lost to the Redskins who were phenomenal that year (especially their offense--they score like 560 points that year) and Dallas who was one of the greatest teams ever. We have nothing to be ashamed of. The problem as I see as well, was that Walt Corey's defensive schemes did not play to our strengths. Another thing was, we were too small up front defensively. If Smerlas played for us one more year, we would have beaten the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 the period of NFC dominance, 765360[/snapback] Thank God that's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Agreed, but throughout the period of NFC dominance, there were good AFC teams that were able to beat good NFC teams in the regular season. That always happened. There has to be a tangible reason the NFC won 13 in a row. It's not coincidental. 765360[/snapback] Since then however, the AFC has won 7 of 9 &.... prior to the 13 SB run, the AFC won 9 of 12. AFC was obviously dominant prior to and after the NFCs dominance. It's not coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Since then however, the AFC has won 7 of 9 &....prior to the 13 SB run, the AFC won 9 of 12. AFC was obviously dominant prior to and after the NFCs dominance. It's not coincidental. 765686[/snapback] The balance of power is clearly a shifting thing. The 13 in a row was a bit much, though. The one year everybody thought the NFC sent a relatively weak representative during that time (1990), they still managed to win the game against a team that everybody agreed had superior talent. Call it the gameplan or whatever other reason you want to use, but I just find it interesting that one of the few times during that streak when the AFC had the best chance to steal one, they still couldn't do it - despite the Bills' talent and later resilience. Most other years during that time the NFC representative was expected to win convincingly and usually did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Funny, I listened to the GR55 interview with Steve Tasker...Brad Ritter (I think) asked him if the 1990-93 Bills were sort of the equivalant of the Patriots now (minus the SB victories)...surprisingly, I thought, Tasker seemed to feel that the Patriots achievments were more impressive, given the constant tumult in the leauge, with rosters, theses days...thought he wasn't denigrating the Bills at all.... I am of the opinion that what the Bills did, mentally anyways, is unparalleled in sports. Sure, as we all know it is very difficult to win a Super Bowl, let alone two or three in a row...but to get that close, and meet such bitter disappointment time and time and time and time again, but to keep going back is even more impressive in some ways. In truth, I think, the Giants were the only team of those 4 that the Bills were clearly superior too, personel wise. The Redskins were an amazing offensive team in 1991 that just seemed destined to win the whole thing from opening week...and the Cowboys had what, I believe, is the most dominant offensive line of the last 25-30 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJ's Glove Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 In truth, I think, the Giants were the only team of those 4 that the Bills were clearly superior too, personel wise. The Redskins were an amazing offensive team in 1991 that just seemed destined to win the whole thing from opening week...and the Cowboys had what, I believe, is the most dominant offensive line of the last 25-30 years... 765754[/snapback] I agree. But it also begs the question as to why no other AFC team was able to win one or even be competitive very often in the SB during that period. Cincinnati had two close matchups against the Niners, but not many other games were that close. I don't really have a good answer. The Broncos were pretty talented and Elway's record speaks for itself. So why did they get spanked so badly three times? Not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts