Thurman#1 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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. We had the bad fortune to play two really terrific teams, the Skins and the Cowboys the last year we were in the SB. We were right in there with the Giants, and it was well after halftime before we were behind in the #3 SB against the Cowboys. We were right in that one till late. And as the other folks said, we would beat those teams in the regular season. The year after the first loss to the Cowboys, if I remember correctly, we beat them in the regular season. We were a very very good team. If we had had a Ted Washington or a Pat Williams at NT instead of the 274 pound (at NT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Jeff Wright, we would have won 2 or maybe even 3 of those SBs.
Thurman#1 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Sorry, I didn't see it that way. The Giants (Parcels & Co aka Bill Belichick) saw enough of the K Gun offense in the earlier regular season game and adjusted their gameplan for it in Super Bowl XXV. What worked for the Bills in the regular season didn't work for them in the Super Bowl. When your offense runs efficently all season and then gets shut down in the course of a game then it's too late to go to another gameplan during that game. Thurman gained those yards because that's what the Giants were willing to concede. This strategy took time off the clock and kept the Bills from scoring like a pinball machine, like they were doing all season long. That Super Bowl had to be played one of two ways. Either the Bills were going to explode on points and force the Giants' plodding offense to try and keep up with them or the Giants were going to slow the game down and keep Buffalo from making explosive plays/scores. Take a guess on who's gameplan prevailed? "Thurman gained those yards because that was what they were willing to concede?" 15 rushes for 135? NINE YARDS PER CARRY? Are you crazy? If we had ridden Thurman we would have absolutely forced them to abandon that defense. They could not stop Thurman that day, they could not even get close. Yeah, it was a clever game plan. But the Bills should easily have figured out what was working (NINE YARDS PER CARRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!) against it and simply repeated and repeated until the Giants stopped it. The Giants would NOT have stopped it. At least not without switching to a different defense.
VJ91 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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.? As talented as they were, with members of those teams becoming Hall of Famers almost annually, your friend is sadly correct. They have one distinction that I think will never be matched, much like Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. I don't believe any NFL team will ever play in four consecutive Super Bowls, now that total free agency and salary caps have become normal life in the NFL. During their 4 year streak, free agency and the salary cap were just beginning, and the Bills were still able to keep all or almost all of their stars together. However, I agree with your friend. Just like those horrible Denver Broncos teams in the 80's, that always got past the Cleveland Browns in the AFC Championship games, and then went on to bet blown out in the SB's against the Giants, Redskins and 49ers. The Bills and their No-Huddle offense and bend - but - don't break lighting fast defense were able to rule during the regular season and AFC playoffs. But that style was never good enough to win the SB's against the more traditionally bigger, stronger and in the Cowboy's case, just as lighting fast, NFC teams. You missed cheering for one of the most explosive, and talented group of teams in NFL history by being too young to enjoy the Bills of the mid 80's to mid 90's. But you did not miss cheering for a dynasty deserving of being mentioned with the 49ers, Steelers or Cowboys - those teams all won Super Bowls.
Bill from NYC Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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. How about the 3/4 of Hansen, Big Ted and Bruce? They never would have given up the big yasrdage to Anderson.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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. IMO, it is the opposite... Had the Bills played SF alll four years, the Bills would have beat them 4 times... Probably a couple of them by 10 to 20 points. SF was truly the dream matchup for the Bills that never materialized.
SouthernMan Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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.? Lots of good points made by previous posters. Bills were probably the best team in 1990. The next year, 1991, Redskins had a fluke year with so-so QB Mark Rypien playing like a future HOFer. And yes, the Cowboys of '92 &'93 were possibly the best all-around teams ever. They all matured together at just the right time. Great job by Cowboys personnel staff of assemblying a team after trading Herschel Walker to Vikes for multiple draft picks. You can say it was a "gimme" by the Vikes, but the bottom line is the Cowboys made the most of those picks. I don't think your original question has been fully answered..... It seems to be the "in" thing to say that the AFC was weaker, but in reality, it was simply more balanced. There weren't as many crappy teams and the power was more evenly distributed. In the NFC, it was more a case of the haves and have nots. There were a few dominating teams like the 49er's, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys. There were far more celler-dwellers like perennial losers: Lions, Cardinals, Eagles, Packers, Bears, Bucs, Falcons, Rams. The handful of dominant NFC teams had a bunch of NFC punching bags throughout the regular season and sometimes as their gateway to the superbowl. The Bills dominated NFC teams in regular season matchups from 1988 through the early 1990s. The Bills and 49er was the dream matchup that never was. Either the Bills or 49ers were in most of the superbowls during the mid 80's through mide 90s, though sadly, they never faced each other in the big game. As everyone knows, the Giants game, XXV, is the one the Bills let get away. There was only one week between the Champoinship game and the Superbowl. I don't think the Bills players ever came down from the high of dominating the Raiders in the AFC Championship game 7 days earlier, and actually started believing their own press clippings, forgetting they still had to play the game of their lives to win the thing. Had they gone in with more of an underdog mentality (as the Giants did), they may have won it. I'm not superstitious, but sometimes it just feels like Buffalo is cursed. If any city would appreciate a world championship, it would be Buffalo.
BuffaloBill Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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. Great comments ... also look at the talent on the Bills during the timespan. With FA no team is likely to ever collect that kind of talent again.
Bill from NYC Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 As everyone knows, the Giants game, XXV, is the one the Bills let get away. There was only one week between the Champoinship game and the Superbowl. I don't think the Bills players ever came down from the high of dominating the Raiders in the AFC Championship game 7 days earlier, and actually started believing their own press clippings, forgetting they still had to play the game of their lives to win the thing. Had they gone in with more of an underdog mentality (as the Giants did), they may have won it. It is an unpopular stance for sure, but a strong case could be made that the Bills were out-coached in that game.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 It is an unpopular stance for sure, but a strong case could be made that the Bills were out-coached in that game. I'm not sure it is so unpopular, Bill. Most people who discuss the game, even die hard Bills fans think so. Uncomfortable, yes. Disappointing, certainly. Marv was a very detached coach on game days. He spent more time yelling at the officials than discussing details of strategy on the sidelines, on the theory that by game day you have to let the players play. He takes a lot of heat for giving the Bills a long leash, and the results in SBs suggest that the criticism is deserved. Although to be honest, when teams that party hard and who have coaches with laid back demeanors win (think Tom Flores and the Raiders of SBs XV and XVIII), the same analysts will say how much better it is to be that way than to be too detail-oriented and uptight (Vermeil and the Eagles in SB XV being a key example). More and more, I think that simple good fortune plays a major role in games between elite teams, and afterward people look for reasons to explain why it was obvious that the team that won, won.
K-9 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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.? Complete and utter crap. I haven't taken the time to read the thread and perhaps I'm just repeating what's been posted. But one need only look at the AFC vs. NFC interconference schedules during that era. The AFC routinely beat up the NFC. So to say the NFC was top to bottom the better conference is shortsighted based on that alone. At the top, though, it's tough to argue that the '92 Redskins WEREN'T a better team than the Bills. They were legit. I think the Cowboys were as well. I'll go to my grave KNOWING we were a better team than the Giants, though. Long story short, the NFC had the best teams at the top, while also holding some of the worst teams at the bottom. The Bills beat some good teams to get to those SBs and have nothing to apologize for in that regard. GO BILLS!!!
Gordio Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Complete and utter crap. I haven't taken the time to read the thread and perhaps I'm just repeating what's been posted. But one need only look at the AFC vs. NFC interconference schedules during that era. The AFC routinely beat up the NFC. So to say the NFC was top to bottom the better conference is shortsighted based on that alone. At the top, though, it's tough to argue that the '92 Redskins WEREN'T a better team than the Bills. They were legit. I think the Cowboys were as well. I'll go to my grave KNOWING we were a better team than the Giants, though. Long story short, the NFC had the best teams at the top, while also holding some of the worst teams at the bottom. The Bills beat some good teams to get to those SBs and have nothing to apologize for in that regard. GO BILLS!!! It was not that NFC was a better conference from top to bottom, I think the AFC was actually better if you look at it that way. It was that from the mid 80's until Denver beat Green Bay in the super bowl in 97/98? that the NFC seemed like year in & year out they pumped out one extremely talented dominant team. From the 85 bears/86 Giants/late 80's 49er teams/92 redskins/93-94 Cowboys to Favre's 96 Packers. The super bowl to be had was obviously the Giants. If the Giants & the Bills played 10 times on a neutral field, my guess is the bills would of won at least 8 of them. They were outcoached & if you look at that game about 10 things during the course of the game needed to go right in order for the giants to win. If even one of the bounces did not go their way, they probably lose. The other Sbs, we were really outmanned. I know it was only one year, but that skins team was tough. I think Rypien was only sacked 8 times the whole year. The cowboys teams are probably going to down as one of the top 5 teams of all time.
K-9 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 It was not that NFC was a better conference from top to bottom, I think the AFC was actually better if you look at it that way. It was that from the mid 80's until Denver beat Green Bay in the super bowl in 97/98? that the NFC seemed like year in & year out they pumped out one extremely talented dominant team. From the 85 bears/86 Giants/late 80's 49er teams/92 redskins/93-94 Cowboys to Favre's 96 Packers. The super to be had was obviously the Giants. If the Giants & the Bills played 10 times on a neutral field, my guess is the bills would of won at least 8 of them. They were outcoached & if you look at that game about 10 things during the course of the game needed to go right in order for the giants to win. If even one of the bounces did go their way, they probably lose. The other Sbs, we were really outmanned. I know it was only one year, but that skins team was tough. I think Rypien was only sacked 8 times the whole year. The cowboys teams are probably going to down as one of the top 5 teams of all time. I think you and I are looking at it the exactly the same way. The NFC had a good run of a couple dominant teams at the top that won multiple SBs (49ers, Redskins, Cowboys (F the Giants) and somehow this myth, like the one the OP's friend tries to perpetuate, was created that the NFC was the better conference top to bottom. True observers knew better then and know better now. As a matter of fact, I could make the SAME argument that the reason that the NFC produced a FEW multiple winners of SBs is because of the NFC's lack of competition for them. GO BILLS!!!
SteamRoller67 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 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.? They were good.... It's 2009, next question.
Recommended Posts