first_and_ten Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I say 1990 Bills win. Both teams have dynamic offenses, but the Bills defense was better then todays Patriots defense. I agree, and back then teams could build and keep their own players. Free agency has watered down the league. The Bills were solid in most areas whereas the Patriots have obvious flaws, mostly on defense. I think all the top teams back then could beat this Patriot team. Edited October 25, 2012 by first_and_ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Billycheat finds another way to cheat like he did in sb 25 and they win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Deion Branch. Not dominant like 2000 Baltimore but they were among the best in the league - In Super Bowls the Pats' defenses have played quite well; Brady I would not say elite except maybe once vs. Panthers. N.E. picked off Kurt Warner twice in 2001 (one for TD) and held Marshall Faulk to 78 yards. Vinatieri kicks the 48-yard game-winner. The Rams had one of the best offenses to ever play. 2003 - again Vinatieri was the hero although Brady did play well (got picked off once). Turnovers even. Branch caught 10 balls for 143 and a TD. 2004 - Branch is MVP with unstoppable performance (like Jerry Rice before him); McNabb is picked off 3 times and PHI loses a fumble (as does Brady). 2008 & 2011 - N.E. defenses both not as good as in past years, Brady is humiliated against a good pass rush in 2008 (5 sacks, 1 fumble) and outplayed by Eli Manning in 2012. Not sure what you mean by 3 Brady Super Bowls being more impressive than Montana's 4. Brady has played in 5 and has less wins. The NFC playoffs were very tough to get through in the 80s when you consider NY Giants, Washington, Chicago, and then Dallas' resurgence in the early 90s. SF had two seasons of 14-2 (1990, 1992) and 13-2 (1987) and didn't make it. What I mean is that Brady's 3 Super Bowl wins, especially when coupled with his additional 2 AFC Championships, is a greater feat given the talent he had on his teams than Montana's 4 Super Bowls with the 80's Niners and Bradshaw's 4 Super Bowls with the 70's Steelers. I think that Brady, Montana, Manning and Unitas are in a class by themselves and tier 2 would include Young, Favre, Marino, Elway and possibly Eli. Tier 3 would include Roethlisberger, Kelly, Aikman, Moon, Fouts, Bradshaw et al. And BTW, Kelly should have been a 2nd ballot HOF'er and Thurman should have been a 1st ballot HOF'er. FWIW. Edited October 25, 2012 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Most of last year's playoff teams would beat the 1990 Bills for one reason only. The physical disparity between those players of the past to the present would decide the game. The size and speed of the average modern NFL roster decides it. I loved what we had in the 90's but they were physically overmatched then in the big one and it would be far worse today. thats exactly what i was trying to get at talking about guys like gronk and wilfork. though we handled good players for the 90s, these guys are just bigger and faster i think it would be an interesting match up due to the increased talent of the average player vs the talent dilution of the expanded league and free agency. there are forces at work going both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Wait a minute....why don't we dig up the 1990 bills and actually let them play the 2012 patriots this year? I bet they don't let the patriots score 45 unanswered points. We might have to get some substitutes for the dead guys...if not I'm going to have to bet on the patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 WR's were never open over the middle? I thought Andre Reed made a career out of that. I didn't say that receivers were never open over the middle. I said that they had to work for it. Andre Reed was one of the game's best outside receivers at the time. When he got open over the middle, it was by beating a cornerback - who was allowed to play physical man-to-man coverage - with excellent route running. Oh yeah, and he also had the threat of being beheaded by a safety for going over the middle. Do me a favor and keep your eyes on Wes Welker during the Patriots game this weekend. Most of the time, he lines up in the slot COMPLETELY uncovered. If he is covered, the defensive back is so far back that he can't be seen by the camera. If a defender is in the viscinity, it's usually a linebacker. Really hard to complete that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I'm also 33 years old and I consider Tom Brady to be the greatest QB to ever play the game. 3 Super Bowl victories (way more impressive than Montana's 4), 2 additional AFC Championships including the first 16-0 season in football history. And during his 3 Super Bowl victories? Best receiver he ever threw to was Troy Brown. And these were not dominant defenses either. I really question your football IQ here. If you were to ask 100 football historians- your Steve Sabols (RIP), your John Claytons, Chris Berman, whoever, I don't care (please don't criticize one of these guys, I'm just picking names to make a point), 100 of them would place Tom Brady ahead of Jim Kelly all time. And also, surprised no one's made this point yet: The Pats would win the game as would the 2012 Panthers, because their players on both sides of the line would weigh 30 pounds more, they would be faster, more athletic and wouldn't go out to strip clubs before games and drink and smoke cigarettes. It's like any other sport. I'm sorry, but Shaquille O'Neal would have dominated in the 1950's. Wayne Gretzky would not score 200 points in a season in today's game. I could care less what the majority of football "experts" say. They are wrong. These are the same morons that consider Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning sure bets for the Hall of Fame, simply because they have championship rings. The media looks at Super Bowl wins (should be considered a team accomplishment, not an individual one) and the stat box (which can be very misleading) above all else. I prefer to watch a player on the field before making an assessment of how good he is. Brady is a good quarterback, no doubt. He is extremely accurate, has great pocket awareness and makes excellent decisons. But 99% of his success has come from dumping the ball off to an uncovered receiver (Welker, Branch, Brown) or running back (Faulk, Woodhead) with a pass that travels less than 5 yards in the air - then proceed to watch them do the rest of the work. I refuse to consider that CRAP better than a player like Jim Kelly or Dan Marino - who made a living out of destroying defenses with pinpoint downfield passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I could care less what the majority of football "experts" say. They are wrong. These are the same morons that consider Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning sure bets for the Hall of Fame, simply because they have championship rings. The media looks at Super Bowl wins (should be considered a team accomplishment, not an individual one) and the stat box (which can be very misleading) above all else. I prefer to watch a player on the field before making an assessment of how good he is. Brady is a good quarterback, no doubt. He is extremely accurate, has great pocket awareness and makes excellent decisons. But 99% of his success has come from dumping the ball off to an uncovered receiver (Welker, Branch, Brown) or running back (Faulk, Woodhead) with a pass that travels less than 5 yards in the air - then proceed to watch them do the rest of the work. I refuse to consider that CRAP better than a player like Jim Kelly or Dan Marino - who made a living out of destroying defenses with pinpoint downfield passing. Alright fool me once... You got me, well done sir. In fact, you had me on this one too, but then you mentioned Danny Woodhead. I thought you were serious! The fake troll, I like it! Is this crayonz??? Edited October 25, 2012 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Oh come on!! I hate him as much as anyone else who's a fan of an AFC East Team, BUT, he is an excellent QB and THE reason the Pats are so successful. I am longing for the day he retires because we won't need to worry about the Pats anymore - they'll be just another team. First of all, THE main reason for that team's success is Bill Belichik and the coaching staff. And even the year that Brady went down and we played twice against Matt Cassel, we were 0-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Romes Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 91 Bills may have been better then the 90 Bills. The 92 and 93 Bills teams would have outscored the Patriots. With Bruce Smith hobbled by injury. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 50 TD's in an almost undefeated season and 5 Super Bowl appearances including 3 wins does not put you among the top 10? Wow, you are stingey. First of all, Super Bowls are a team accomplishment. Matt Light has the same resume (5 Super Bowls/3 Wins), but you don't hear anyone comparing him to Anthony Munoz... or even someone closer to his era like Jonathan Ogden or Willie Roaf. Kevin Faulk was there for all 3 wins and the first loss, but you don't see his name thrown up there with Walter Payton and Jim Brown. You wouldn't argue that Barry Sanders and Ladainian Tomlinson (0 Super Bowl rings) were inferior running backs to someone like Brandon Jacobs (2x Super Bowl champ). So why do we do that for quarterbacks? - Brady, Aikman, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, etc. Same thing with the 16-0 season -- (Bob Griese anyone?) Brady's 50 Td season was impressive, no doubt - but it's not like he sustained that pace for a career. It's the same reason I didn't put someone like Kurt Warner above him on that list. Most of his years, Brady has been a check down passer and game manager - with overinflated stats because of the way the NFL rules have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuncha Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Doesn't matter what Bellicheat does on Defense. The Pats O-line is weaksauce in 2012. Bruce & Biscuitt would be all up in Brady's mush all game long. Gronk % Welker would still have a lot of catches but back them we had people that could tackle. Yea we had people who could tackle, however, poor tackling during SB25 was the reason we lost. Edited October 25, 2012 by Azucho98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I say 1990 Bills win. Both teams have dynamic offenses, but the Bills defense was better then todays Patriots defense. A great team from 1990 isn't beating a good team from 2012. Think Walt Chamberlain in today's NBA. He is overrated. I'm 33 years old, and I've been watching football since the late 1980's. During that period, I would put the following quarterbacks above Brady without even thinking twice: Joe Montana Steve Young John Elway Dan Marino Jim Kelly Warren Moon Brett Favre Peyton Manning Drew Brees Brady belongs in the same conversation as Troy Aikman. Both were overrated because of their team's success. This may be blasphemy on this board, but so was Jim Kelly. Brees isn't better than Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I think the Bills would win. I think the other top teams from that era (Dallas, SF) would also win. Those teams were far more loaded with talent since free agency hadn't taken effect at that point. The Bills of that era would have been disolved by free agency during the Super Bowl run. But we were able to maintain a solid core. The more I think about it, it wouldn't be close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) I think the Bills would win. I think the other top teams from that era (Dallas, SF) would also win. Those teams were far more loaded with talent since free agency hadn't taken effect at that point. The Bills of that era would have been disolved by free agency during the Super Bowl run. But we were able to maintain a solid core. The more I think about it, it wouldn't be close. What about the "bigger faster and stronger" argument? 30 years later wilfork is probably 75 lbs heavier than wright, Beebe ran a 4.4 coming out and was the fastest receiver at his combine. Edited October 26, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talley56 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I honestly think almost any Bills team from the 90s would beat the 2012 Pats, maybe with the exception of 94 and 97. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never NEVER Give-up Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) First of all, THE main reason for that team's success is Bill Belichik and the coaching staff. And even the year that Brady went down and we played twice against Matt Cassel, we were 0-2. We're not communicating. The year Cassel played for the Pats, they still had a decent defense (and we continued to suck). NOW-2012, THE only reason the Pats are so good is because of Brady & when he retires, they will be just another team. Belichick is a very good coach - wish we had him, but Brady is the reason the Pats are as good as they are. Though, let's not forget the Pats cheated to get their edge, and had been for years until they were caught and fined. The only reason a bigger deal wasn't made of it was because it would have disgraced the league and it would have killed the golden goose. Give a listen . . . http://www.trendingb...r-bryan-oleary/ - Edited October 26, 2012 by Never NEVER Give-up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Bills not easy though... Say what you want about Brady but I think he beats Kelly out by a nose. Brady is top three to ever play. I wish we had him, with these two backs...child please . But Thurman would run all day behind The Late Kent Hull, Richer, House. I miss that line. Kelly would eat all day with that no huddle would score all day. We had to many weapons. Dre, Lofton, we had a Dream team. Just 1 Super Bowl win and people have a much more positive feeling out those 4 yrs. I know one thang tho, we would not give up a 21- 7 lead and lose 52-28 at home with the 90's team. No f&&king way THAT happens. Out of 10 games I think 90's Bills would win 7 out of 10. They were not pu$$y's on D like these kids are. He is overrated. I'm 33 years old, and I've been watching football since the late 1980's. During that period, I would put the following quarterbacks above Brady without even thinking twice: Joe Montana Steve Young John Elway Dan Marino Jim Kelly Warren Moon Brett Favre Peyton Manning Drew Brees Brady belongs in the same conversation as Troy Aikman. Both were overrated because of their team's success. Aikman cant even smell Brady jock strap. Brady is way better than Aikman. Think about it. He had Emmitt, Novachek, Irvin, Moose, man they were loaded. for a couple of seasons. Brady just did it by his damn self. Well except for Curtis Martin. my top three Montana, Brady, Manning (Peyton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Bill Belicheck vs Marv Levy? Already been done. SB25 What he said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 1. Montana 2. Brady 3. Unitas 4. Young 5. Manning 6. Elway 7. Marino 8. Favre And then a large group including....Kelly, Moon, Aikman, Staubach, Brees, Otto Graham, Rodgers(if he keeps this pace up), Starr, Tarkenton, YA Tittle, Roethlisberger And then a group of very good... Namath, Bledsoe, Bradshaw, Griese, K. Warner, E Manning, Fouts, Esiason and others... FYI Joe Ferguson is still 36th all time in passing yards and TD's...that kind of surpised me but he played a long time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts