Mike in Syracuse Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Amazing teams yes, a dynasty no. Dynasties actually win championships, you can't be a dynasty when you're completely blown out in two championship games. For the record, I blame Levy and his inability to control the team during SB week for those losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 No one besides the Bills have four straight Super Bowls on there resume. The Bills were an AFC Dynasty but that isn't what you are going for. One SB title and they would be a legendary team but overall, they still accomplished something unbelievable, which will likely never be done again. Agree, I doubt any team will ever lose 4 SBs in a row again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Agree, I doubt any team will ever lose 4 SBs in a row again. So we got that goin for us : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemedic Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Tasker re-defined the gunner position. Double covered and no one could stop him, no to mention blocked kick after blocked kick, pro-bowl after pro-bowl. He's in, just a matter of time......... Polian built the team......and the Colts......he also is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 2, 2014 Author Share Posted February 2, 2014 Tasker re-defined the gunner position. Double covered and no one could stop him, no to mention blocked kick after blocked kick, pro-bowl after pro-bowl. He's in, just a matter of time......... Polian built the team......and the Colts......he also is in. And got Carolina to the NFC Championship game in their 2nd year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Amazing teams yes, a dynasty no. Dynasties actually win championships, you can't be a dynasty when you're completely blown out in two championship games. For the record, I blame Levy and his inability to control the team during SB week for those losses. I think your definition of a dynasty is very limited. Ever team starts out with a goal to get to the SB. A dynasty by my definition is dominating your conference over an extended period. The Bills clearly did that! Where the 91 Redskins a dynasty, or the 90 giants for that matter?. The Dynasty of the NFC during that era was Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 For the record, I blame Levy and his inability to control the team during SB week for those losses. Marv Levy X 10 couldn't keep the egotistical 1990 Buffalo Bills players in check. Andre Reed made some critical first half drops which if caught the ball the Bills would have blown the Giants out of the water by the third quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 I think your definition of a dynasty is very limited. Ever team starts out with a goal to get to the SB. A dynasty by my definition is dominating your conference over an extended period. The Bills clearly did that! Where the 91 Redskins a dynasty, or the 90 giants for that matter?. The Dynasty of the NFC during that era was Dallas. There's a lot of teams out there that have gotten to the SB and some have won it. They weren't "dynasties". When you have four chances to win your a championship and you fail all four times, twice in spectacularly comical fashion, then you're a very good runner up. The 90's Bills were an amazing team but they weren't a "dynasty". It's very unlikely that anyone one team will ever go to four consecutive SB's again. The salary cap and free agency will make sure of that. The C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Fontes Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Around the time the Bills were going to Super Bowls, I remember a discussion on sports radio that revolved around the high probability of victory when a team generates a safety, blocked punt, or kickoff return for a td. When Bruce sacked Hostetler, I was sure XXV was salted away. When Tasker blocked the punt in XXVII, I deluded myself that a Bills victory was the only outcome. Edited February 4, 2014 by Wayne Fontes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yeah, I wasn't all that upset that Bruce didn't get the ball away. I thought that was going to be it, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 No dynasty the NBA equivalent of John Stockton & Karl Malone. They simply weren't better than any team they played in the SB outside of SB25. The Bills out-scored the Giants 32-30 in 1990. What could have lost it for us was our injuring Phil Simms in that December 1990 road game @ the NYG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Tim Graham wrote an article today that was very similar to what I was getting at in my original post: http://www.buffalonews.com/columns/tim-graham/canton-trips-soothe-bills-super-bowl-pain-20140202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I think Tasker is going to get in as a broadcaster. Tasker single handedly reinvented special teams. He most certainly deserves to be the the Hall...... "Single handedly"....what rubbish. People blocked punts and field goals, and tackled returners before Tasker. The old "you can't write the history of the NFL without him" hogwash...that depends how detailed you wanna get. You can talk a lot of football history without ever mentioning Steve Tasker. If you wanted to write a super detailed history, you could mention EVERY PLAYER that ever played. If you wanna start there, then whittle it down to the essentials... no Steve Tasker. And no, Special Teams are NOT one third of the game... http://blogs.thescor...-special-teams/ You guys are never satisfied. If Tasker gets in then it's "Darryl Talley deserves to... ", or "Bennett has to be considered...". The Bills are very fortunate to have so many guys in, and the best guys from that team made it. Steve Tasker was very good, but....blahblahblah...you guys are delusional homers, and he ain't gettin' in. I think Steve Tasker has strong appeal for a particular demographic. Edited February 4, 2014 by Marauder'sMicro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't know when, but Polian will get in for what he created in Buffalo, Carolina's, and Indy. He was the architect of the team. It doesn't hurt having him on ESPN, and NFL Radio. He stays relevant and in the voters mind. I also think because he changed the game in ST, Tasker will get in the senior committee. Really amazing our owner, and in this scenario, the GM, Coach, and six players make the HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Sure was a dynasty , 4 straight trip to the game. It was an amazing time. what great football we saw. I think Hull gets in. He ran the best line in football. He was a beast at center and I still don't think he gets enough credit for what he did. Tasker IMO should get in. He made lots of plays for us, blocked a kick in the Super Bowl, even played offense and was one of the better WR's we had for a while. We dont get to the Super Bowls without him, he was a key piece in the puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Kent Hull is not going to the Hall of Fame. Do you guys realize there are 31 other teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think Tasker is going to get in as a broadcaster. "Single handedly"....what rubbish. People blocked punts and field goals, and tackled returners before Tasker. The old "you can't write the history of the NFL without him" hogwash...that depends how detailed you wanna get. You can talk a lot of football history without ever mentioning Steve Tasker. If you wanted to write a super detailed history, you could mention EVERY PLAYER that ever played. If you wanna start there, then whittle it down to the essentials... no Steve Tasker. And no, Special Teams are NOT one third of the game... http://blogs.thescor...-special-teams/ You guys are never satisfied. If Tasker gets in then it's "Darryl Talley deserves to... ", or "Bennett has to be considered...". The Bills are very fortunate to have so many guys in, and the best guys from that team made it. Steve Tasker was very good, but....blahblahblah...you guys are delusional homers, and he ain't gettin' in. I think Steve Tasker has strong appeal for a particular demographic. Wow..you are a little angry! While I happen to agree with you, to a degree, I think what keeps him out is attitudes like yours (on this subject) will only become more popular as time goes on. People will take his contributions out of context of the times that they were accomplished. As I said earlier, he won't have return touchdowns as a stat in his favor.. in the Fantasy Football era, TD's seem to trump everything else. Not sure what "particular demographic" you are referring to. I also get the impression that you really didn't see Tasker play, or were too young to realize how important a piece he was to the Bills success over the course of about 5 or 6 years. While I would never say he "re-invented" special teams, he stood out, precisely, because his ability to come up with big plays, smart plays (on the fly) and always mindful of the most obscure rules and nuances of special teams. He did it consistently. I would say, over the course of the 4 Super Bowl seasons, Tasker played a major role in about 5-8 wins...which easily could have changed the teams fortunes those years. You say "People blocked punts and field goals, and tackled returners before Tasker" which is correct. But Tasker did more than just those things. While he did not re-invent special teams, his contributions to special teams were considered unique and remarkable enough, that the NFL added a "special teams" player to the Pro Bowl, simply so Tasker could be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Wow..you are a little angry! While I happen to agree with you, to a degree, I think what keeps him out is attitudes like yours (on this subject) will only become more popular as time goes on. People will take his contributions out of context of the times that they were accomplished. As I said earlier, he won't have return touchdowns as a stat in his favor.. in the Fantasy Football era, TD's seem to trump everything else. Not sure what "particular demographic" you are referring to. I also get the impression that you really didn't see Tasker play, or were too young to realize how important a piece he was to the Bills success over the course of about 5 or 6 years. While I would never say he "re-invented" special teams, he stood out, precisely, because his ability to come up with big plays, smart plays (on the fly) and always mindful of the most obscure rules and nuances of special teams. He did it consistently. I would say, over the course of the 4 Super Bowl seasons, Tasker played a major role in about 5-8 wins...which easily could have changed the teams fortunes those years. You say "People blocked punts and field goals, and tackled returners before Tasker" which is correct. But Tasker did more than just those things. While he did not re-invent special teams, his contributions to special teams were considered unique and remarkable enough, that the NFL added a "special teams" player to the Pro Bowl, simply so Tasker could be included. I saw every game. All the arguments for and against have been run into the ground on this board. No need to regurgitate them. I think short, white, family guys (and the women that love them) between the ages of 40 - 65, who resided in the Western New York, and Southern Ontario area during Tasker's career, strongly identify with Tasker (I fit that demographic by the way), and it gives them an unrealistic perspective on his importance in NFL history. I think the more of those elements you remove, the less anyone cares about Steve Tasker, and his noteworthy, but not HoF-worthy career. Edited February 4, 2014 by Marauder'sMicro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I saw every game. All the arguments for and against have been run into the ground on this board. No need to regurgitate them. I think short, white, family guys (and the women that love them) between the ages of 40 - 65, who resided in the Western New York, and Southern Ontario area during Tasker's career, strongly identify with Tasker (I fit that demographic by the way), and it gives them an unrealistic perspective on his importance in NFL history. I think the more of those elements you remove, the less anyone cares about Steve Tasker, and his noteworthy, but not HoF-worthy career. Yeah, I was afraid you were going there...and you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Yeah, I was afraid you were going there...and you are wrong. It certainly plays a role. I think people love "the scrappy little white guy, who plays smart", because they can easily identify with him. People love "Rudy". I'm not really placing more emphasis on the "white" aspect. His size is just as much a factor, and his "nice guy, who play's smart" has strong appeal to the coach-type person as well. He is very much a family guy's type of player. Every dad is telling his kid to play like Tasker. I like Tasker, and have plenty of respect for the things he did. Edited February 4, 2014 by Marauder'sMicro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts