How good were the 1990's Bills?

[FightinIrishBills]

Long-time lurker, but this is one of my first posts. Anyways, I was talking to a friend about the early 90's Bills teams and he said that the Bills were only so good because the rest of the AFC was crap, and the beat downs in the last 3 SuperBowls were indicative of that. While I heartily disagreed, I'm only in college now and wasn't around at the time to really appreciate the level of competition.

 

So again I ask: were the Bills only good because they played against weak competition? Or should they belong in what we consider the "dynastic" teams like the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the 80's, etc.?

[Dante]

Long-time lurker, but this is one of my first posts. Anyways, I was talking to a friend about the early 90's Bills teams and he said that the Bills were only so good because the rest of the AFC was crap, and the beat downs in the last 3 SuperBowls were indicative of that. While I heartily disagreed, I'm only in college now and wasn't around at the time to really appreciate the level of competition.

 

So again I ask: were the Bills only good because they played against weak competition? Or should they belong in what we consider the "dynastic" teams like the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the 80's, etc.?

I think they were a very good team. Obviously not good enough and certainly cannot be grouped in with any of those teams mentioned.

[Tcali]

Long-time lurker, but this is one of my first posts. Anyways, I was talking to a friend about the early 90's Bills teams and he said that the Bills were only so good because the rest of the AFC was crap, and the beat downs in the last 3 SuperBowls were indicative of that. While I heartily disagreed, I'm only in college now and wasn't around at the time to really appreciate the level of competition.

 

So again I ask: were the Bills only good because they played against weak competition? Or should they belong in what we consider the "dynastic" teams like the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the 80's, etc.?

Our D line was a bit too small.That was our main weakness. Too bad we didn't have the '88 line playing in the SB.

Nice move getting rid of Smerlas.

[WellDressed]

Long-time lurker, but this is one of my first posts. Anyways, I was talking to a friend about the early 90's Bills teams and he said that the Bills were only so good because the rest of the AFC was crap, and the beat downs in the last 3 SuperBowls were indicative of that. While I heartily disagreed, I'm only in college now and wasn't around at the time to really appreciate the level of competition.

 

So again I ask: were the Bills only good because they played against weak competition? Or should they belong in what we consider the "dynastic" teams like the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the 80's, etc.?

 

Nah.....They put the beat down on the NFC East teams in regular season games. They where capable of coming back from some HUGE deficits, also blew some teams out of the water early, and never looked back.

 

The thing I remember the most, was that no matter what the situation, the Bills were able to win games no matter what!!

 

BILLS!!

 

Edit: Would they have been as dominant as they were if they didn't run the K-gun?? Honestly, I would have to say not so much.

[PearlHowardman]

Lamentably, your friend is 100% correct.

[Dan]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Bills during the early 90's were undefeated (but maybe 1 or 3 losses) to the NFC teams they played each year. Essentially, the kicked every one's ass for quite a few years. With one notable exception - in the Super Bowl. For what ever reason, and perhaps several, the Bills just couldn't win that game. But, during the regular season and playoffs they were never beaten; they just ran out of time a few times.

 

I consider it a life lesson. Life is not meant to be fair or just. If it was, that team would have won a Super Bowl they were more than good enough.

[PearlHowardman]

Had we played SF (instead of the Giants) in Super Bowl XXV SF would have won by at least 10 points. Subsequent SBs we weren't even close.

 

No dynasty.

[Lurker]

So again I ask: were the Bills only good because they played against weak competition? Or should they belong in what we consider the "dynastic" teams like the Steelers of the 70's, 49ers of the 80's, etc.?

They were very good, routinely beating NFC teams during the regular season. But not a dynasty, since that term is reserved for champions, IMO.

 

Look at the year-by-year stats and opponent records and judge for yourself.

[Dan]

Had we played SF (instead of the Giants) in Super Bowl XXV SF would have won by at least 10 points. Subsequent SBs we weren't even close.

 

No dynasty.

Didn't we play SF a year or so after that and beat them in the game with no punts? Didn't we play the Giants in 1990 and beat them in the regular season?

[GOBILLS78]

Great -- not good -- team that couldn't win the big game. When teams hit them in the mouth, they'd always seem to panic.

[Tcali]

Had we played SF (instead of the Giants) in Super Bowl XXV SF would have won by at least 10 points. Subsequent SBs we weren't even close.

 

No dynasty.

Thats true. The Niners were the best team in football that year. Bills #2. Giants about # 3 or 4.

[gus2378]

Funny, if the AFC was so weak, how come the Bills racked up 7 playoff wins over teams quarterbacked by future Hall of Famers from 1988-95? (Moon twice, Marino 3 times, Elway and Montana).

The Bills lost to great teams. But to just say the NFC was always WAY better is not accurate either; Washington had to beat Atlanta and Detroit to get to SB XVI. Would you say they Washington team was just lucky to play in a weak NFC? Of course not. It was a great team.

The Bills went 14-2 vs. the NFC during the Super Bowl seasons, and the two losses were both the last game of the season when the Bills rested many of their starters. Seven of the 14 wins were over NFC playoff teams. Kelly never lost a start to an NFC team during those seasons.

It was a great team that ran into some bad matchups (I've always wondered if things had been different if they ever played the 49ers in a SB) and then played its worst 3 of the 4 games at the worst possible time. They were not good enough when it mattered most, so they did not earn the right to be mentioned with some of THE ABSOLUTE greatest teams ever.

But let's not diminish and dismiss what they DID accomplish by saying it was just a weak AFC. If the AFC was so weak, Marino, Elway and Moon were way overrated, right? And Schottenheimer's playoff teams in Cleveland and KC ... and Cowher's early Pittsburgh teams .... did they all suck? You can't have it both ways.

[PearlHowardman]

Didn't we play SF a year or so after that and beat them in the game with no punts? Didn't we play the Giants in 1990 and beat them in the regular season?

 

Yes, but SF and the Giants brought home the hardware from their respective SB games.

 

It's not a Buffalo Bills thing. It was the NFC being much better than the AFC during that time.

 

While the Greatest Comeback game against Houston in 1993 is celebrated here, I am probably the ONLY Bills fan who is embarrassed at that game. Both teams were horrible. Dallas discovered (proved) that about 3 weeks later against us in the SB.

[Dan]

Yes, but SF and the Giants brought home the hardware from their respective SB games.

 

It's not a Buffalo Bills thing. It was the NFC being much better than the AFC during that time.

 

While the Greatest Comeback game against Houston in 1993 is celebrated here, I am probably the ONLY Bills fan who is embarrassed at that game. Both teams were horrible. Dallas discovered (proved) that about 3 weeks later against us in the SB.

Of that I have no doubt.

[Wiz]

Our D line was a bit too small.That was our main weakness. Too bad we didn't have the '88 line playing in the SB.

Nice move getting rid of Smerlas.

I cringed when they dumped Smerlas in favor of the smallish Jeff Wright. No doubt that with the '88 d-line of Bruce, Smerlas and Art Still, they would have beaten the Giants and competed in the next three.

 

Regardless of their regular season record against the NFC, the Super Bowl is a different game. Bottom line was that the front office was content in being the best AFC team and never made the adjustments defensively to better match up against the more physical NFC offenses.

[Lurker]

While the Greatest Comeback game against Houston in 1993 is celebrated here, I am probably the ONLY Bills fan who is embarrassed at that game.

The 30,000 or so fans who left that game at halftime would be a good indicator that you're not...

[gus2378]

Yes, but SF and the Giants brought home the hardware from their respective SB games.

 

It's not a Buffalo Bills thing. It was the NFC being much better than the AFC during that time.

 

While the Greatest Comeback game against Houston in 1993 is celebrated here, I am probably the ONLY Bills fan who is embarrassed at that game. Both teams were horrible. Dallas discovered (proved) that about 3 weeks later against us in the SB.

Yeah, losing to one of the best teams ever makes you HORRIBLE. Give me a break. 99% of the teams in NFL history must really suck a$$, because they were not as good as the "horrible" 1990s Bills.

[fansince61]

They were an amazing offensive juggernaut team. Jim Kelly routinely played lousy first quarters and we routinely knew they would win any way. They could score at will. Sadly, the defense was ok but not dominant. In one season we went to the big game with the leagues worst rated defense. They gave up a lot of yards, but were often at the top of the league in takeaways.

 

Bruce Smith was our best player on defense which helped a weak secondary. Bruce could take over a game. Eventually teams learned the way to neutralize Bruce was to run right at him. He was so bent on getting the QB, that he wasn't that great at stopping the run.

 

Marv, was heavily criticized by the fans back then. People used to say he was a poker player who was dealt four aces, but still managed to lose the big game.

 

To your question the AFC was weak in general, but the Bills of the 90's did what you are supposed to do against weak teams, they demolished them. It was a great time to be a Bills fan. Any of your friends who cut down that team don't know what they are talking about. Dallas and Washington had huge offensive lines, and deserving champions, but the Bills teams of the 90's were great. At the end of the day, the Hall of Fame will probably host, Kelly, Thomas, Levy, Smith and eventually Reed, Tasker and Hull.

[WellDressed]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Bills during the early 90's were undefeated (but maybe 1 or 3 losses) to the NFC teams they played each year. Essentially, the kicked every one's ass for quite a few years. With one notable exception - in the Super Bowl. For what ever reason, and perhaps several, the Bills just couldn't win that game. But, during the regular season and playoffs they were never beaten; they just ran out of time a few times.

 

I consider it a life lesson. Life is not meant to be fair or just. If it was, that team would have won a Super Bowl they were more than good enough.

 

Thanks Dan, I wanted to say that, but I was not 100% sure. I can only recall the ease with NFC east clubs.

[thewildrabbit]

The AFC had John Elway- Dan Marino- Joe Montana at KC with Schottenheimer- Warren Moon so they didn't play against crappy AFC teams.

 

The problems that I noticed were: in that first super bowl with Kelly calling his own plays the Bills simply didn't run Thurman Thomas enough.

Parcells and Belichick had that defense in a constant 4-1-6 package with Lawrence Taylor as the only linebacker spying Thurman. Plus the fact that the Bills defense couldn't stop the run when they needed to. That is another reason why I hate the bills current defense, because they are constantly bad against the run year after year.

The NYG and retread OJ Anderson just punished the Bills on the ground and kept Kelly on the sidelines. The Bills were 21 point favorites and should have beaten the Giants soundly. I must guess that nobody on the Bills coaching staff watched the Giants beat Joe Montana while shutting down Bill Walsh's vaunted passing attack a few games earlier. Had the Bills used Thurman Thomas more in that first half they would have beaten the spread, JMO.

 

The second SB they faced a very high scoring Redskin passing offense, not to mention that Kelly was sacked and concussed and knocked out of the game, and should have stayed out of it. Besides the fact that Ted Marchibroda was hired to be Indy's head coach while still employed as the OC for the SB left the offensive game plan lacking.Then consider Kelly called his own plays and since he was not in the game...

 

The next two it just seemed the Cowboys were younger, bigger,stronger, faster. The Dallas O line and D line were enormous compared to buffalo's. Again the Bills just couldn't stop Emmitt Smith and the Dallas running game for very long.

 

In summery, the Bills beat some great AFC teams to reach the super bowl and it seemed like they were never fully healthy after those games. They played such tough AFC games it took a severe toll on the teams. Against Denver the O line was so decimated they needed Pete Metzelaars to sub in at tackle because every backup was out injured.

 

One year the NFL decided to make the change from two weeks to only week between the AFC - NFC championship games and Superbowl, it really screwed the Bills because they were so banged up.