Jump to content

Bills vs. Steelers 1/2/05


section122

Recommended Posts

the way the conference was those days (steelers, colts, patriots,) even if we had gotten in, the odds of us, as a wild card, beating 2 of those 3 teams, is/was next to impossible.

True, but, the way I see it, our chances of beating Indy, then Jacksonville, then St Louis in 2000 were just as unlikely (even if the Titans almost did it). Doesn't make the loss to the Titans any less painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bills just had to beat the Steelers backups and get in. This much is true. What I can't stand is the routine reference to it being their third stringers and nobodies.

I remember trying to disavow people of that notion before the game even started but it all fell on deaf ears.

Then I remember trying to re-state the point after the game and being met with only ridicule.

That squad was absolutely loaded for bear and ended up being another fine example of Bill Cowher's inability to beat people in the postseason when he consistently had a superior roster.

 

Tommy Maddox beat us.

Actually the most decisive and determinative QB in that game was none other than Drew Bledsoe.

Nobody should have been surprised by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me, that game against the steelers was a wildcard game, for all intents and purposes. it was fun anticipating it, it was (somewhat) fun watching it, and i was over the loss in a few hours afterwards.

A classic illustration of the loser mentality that has afflicted Buffalo Bills nation after suffering through a decade-plus of ineptitude, losses and dysfunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, that game against the steelers was a wildcard game, for all intents and purposes. it was fun anticipating it, it was (somewhat) fun watching it, and i was over the loss in a few hours afterwards.

 

A classic illustration of the loser mentality that has afflicted Buffalo Bills nation after suffering through a decade-plus of ineptitude, losses and dysfunction.

 

Or it was the take of a person with a good life and a good perspective who isn't going to let a bad loss ruin his day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it was the take of a person with a good life and a good perspective who isn't going to let a bad loss ruin his day.

Or it was the take of a person who simply doesn't expect much from a franchise that is about to extend its playoff draught to an impressive 14 consecutive years in a parity-driven league. Viewing abysmal results through rose-colored glasses is hardly my definition of a "good perspective," but as you correctly suggest, to each his own. :)

Edited by Dawgg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That much is NOT true, and I cannot believe the myth has perpetuated as long as it has..

 

The Bills needed to win, that much is true.

However, entering the day the Jets were a game ahead of the Bills at 10-5, and the Broncos also had a 9-6 record . If the Bills and Broncos won and the Jets lost, Bills/Broncos would get in on tiebreakers.

 

If Jets beat the Rams that day in St. Louis , they were in no matter what at 11-5. Broncos held tiebreaker against Bills I believe, and were in much the same situation as the Bills, playing the Colts who had secure their seed and were playing a majority of backups, including Payton Manning not playing, and they were also at home.

 

Bills and Jets kicked off at 1, Broncos at 4. I was watching both the Bills and Jets game, The Rams also needed to win to get into the playoffs. Long story short,back and forth game but Jets Rams went into OT just as the Bills game ended, securing a playoff spot for the Jets.

 

Off went the starters for the Jets, they tried a crazy long field goal that missed , giving Rams great field position and they went on to win game.

 

Now, would the Jets still have lost if the Bills won? One can never say.

 

But the prevalent thought that that was a win and your in game is just plain wrong.

 

 

That much is NOT true, and I cannot believe the myth has perpetuated as long as it has..

 

The Bills needed to win, that much is true.

However, entering the day the Jets were a game ahead of the Bills at 10-5, and the Broncos also had a 9-6 record . If the Bills and Broncos won and the Jets lost, Bills/Broncos would get in on tiebreakers.

 

If Jets beat the Rams that day in St. Louis , they were in no matter what at 11-5. Broncos held tiebreaker against Bills I believe, and were in much the same situation as the Bills, playing the Colts who had secure their seed and were playing a majority of backups, including Payton Manning not playing, and they were also at home.

 

Bills and Jets kicked off at 1, Broncos at 4. I was watching both the Bills and Jets game, The Rams also needed to win to get into the playoffs. Long story short,back and forth game but Jets Rams went into OT just as the Bills game ended, securing a playoff spot for the Jets.

 

Off went the starters for the Jets, they tried a crazy long field goal that missed , giving Rams great field position and they went on to win game.

 

Now, would the Jets still have lost if the Bills won? One can never say.

 

But the prevalent thought that that was a win and your in game is just plain wrong.

 

After the Jets-Rams game, Herman Edwards said at the post-game press conference that he would not have tried the long FG if the Bills had won. Since winning would have no effect on their now-assured playoff slotting, he said "the heck with it" and tried to end it there. I watched that game, and i felt pretty confident at the time that the Jets would have won if they hadn't tried the kick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...