Pats: Spy In The East

[PromoTheRobot]

Have you noticed how you don't hear much from Yankee fans these days? Nothing lasts forever, trolls.

 

PTR

[BRH]

And still I'd like to hear from YOU what NFC teams from 1990-1993 could have beaten the Bills in the SB.  You said "several" and I want to hear them.  I already spotted you the 49'ers.

404914[/snapback]

Let's put it this way:

 

The Giants of 1991, 1992 and 1993 couldn't have beaten the Bills in those seasons' Super Bowls. The only chance they had was in 1990, and they made good on it.

 

The Redskins of 1991 were much better than the 'Skins of the preceding year and the next two years.

 

The Cowboys of 1990 and 1991 weren't yet at the stage where they could think about making the SB, let alone win it. Remember, they were 1-15 in 1989.

 

When OJG says "several" teams from 1990-93 could have beaten the Bills, he seems to be including all four years' worth of the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys in that calculation. I say that the years they won it were the only years they could have won it.

 

After the Cowboys of '92-'93, the Redskins of '91, the Giants of '90, and the Niners of '90-'93, who else was there in the NFC? The Eagles? Please. The Packers? Not there yet by a long shot. The Bears? They were done. That leaves the Cardinals, Wayne Fontes' Lions, the Vikings, the Suckaneers, the Aints, the Rams, and the Falcons. Any takers? Didn't think so.

 

The NFC during the early '90s had two dominant franchises each year, a couple of average ones, and a bunch of crappy ones. The distance between, say, the Cowboys and Niners of '92 and the bottom-feeders of the NFC that year was considerable. They had plenty of "off weeks" in their own conference.

 

Please let's not generalize a couple of great teams into a "dominant conference."

[Ljberkow12]

I'd be hard-pressed to name even ONE team outside of the SB winner who could have beaten the Bills in the SB, much less "several."  I also think that in 1991, the Oilers could have beaten the Redskins in the SB.  But that's all as much speculation as the Raiders beating the Rams in 2001 had the "tuck" not happened, or the Colts beating the Panthers in 2003 if not for all the missed/ignored defensive interferences.

404076[/snapback]

 

C'mon. Come up for something for 2004.

 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

C'mon.  Come up for something for 2004. 

Try as I might, I cannot find fault in the Pats' SB run last year. No (major) ref calls influenced the outcomes in any of the games, unlike the 2 previous SB runs. You see, I CAN give credit where it's due.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Exactly. And the claim that "several NFC teams (and "several" to me means at least 3)" each year could have beaten the Bills in the SB as well is "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

[OJ's Glove]

Let's put it this way:

 

The Giants of 1991, 1992 and 1993 couldn't have beaten the Bills in those seasons' Super Bowls.  The only chance they had was in 1990, and they made good on it.

 

The Redskins of 1991 were much better than the 'Skins of the preceding year and the next two years. 

 

The Cowboys of 1990 and 1991 weren't yet at the stage where they could think about making the SB, let alone win it.  Remember, they were 1-15 in 1989.

 

When OJG says "several" teams from 1990-93 could have beaten the Bills, he seems to be including all four years' worth of the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys in that calculation.

404933[/snapback]

 

You said it in a better way than I have been trying to. I guess what I'm getting at is there has to be some reason that the survivor of the NFC (not always the same team) seemed to usually make easy work of the AFC Champ (not always the same team). 1990 was the exception, but games that close were rare. People complained about how boring the SB was, and one conference won every freaking year. Three or four times in a row might be a statistical anomaly, but when one side wins thirteen times in a row, I'll bet good money that there is a reason for that. DeOssie is a blowhard, but it doesn't make him wrong about what he remembers about the attitude of players around the league when he was playing.

 

Maybe there's a different reason for the NFC dominance of the period, and I'm certainly willing to entertain suggestions. The idea that the higher-tier NFC teams were more physical in the trenches seems reasonable. Any other ideas? It isn't just about the Bills and the early 90's: NFC SB dominance went from '84-'96.

 

I rooted for the Bills all four times, BTW.

[cromagnum]

That the bill's went to four straight superbowl's is a accomplishment that will probally never be repeated. Philly is aiming to match that feat, except their recieving corp's will be a major issue. MLB has a 52 game hit streak,set by dimaggio.The pat's are aiming for a third straight superbowl, I don't see it, to many issues with respect to asst. coaches and player's.The bill's should have been in superbowl 34 !!! The ref's prevented that from happening.Will I root for the pat's this year, yes. Do I sense myself rambling, right now yes. Whould I root for the bill's, yes! or any other team in the afc east were they not playing the pat's. Okay cut and paste then and joust away. Meanwhile packer's charge's is on fumble!!!!!!!!!!

[erynthered]

Have you noticed how you don't hear much from Yankee fans these days? 

 

PTR

404927[/snapback]

 

 

Here you go:

 

 

 

"You're an ass"

[Ljberkow12]

That the bill's went to four straight superbowl's is a accomplishment that will probally never be repeated. Philly is  aiming to match that feat, except their recieving corp's  will  be a major issue.

405399[/snapback]

 

How are the Eagles looking to match that feat? They've been to one in a row. The Patriots have been to a couple in a row. But this is a different era with the salary cap in effect. That's what makes the Patriots three SB Championships in four years so great. That they win close games in the SB is what makes them great. They know how to win close games. They have Brady and Vinatieri. Those two are deadly with the game on the line. It's absolutely no accident or luck that the Patriots won those games. They are built to win - not to dominate. That explains their 34-4 record the last two years. It's simply a dominant record.

[stuckincincy]

How are the Eagles looking to match that feat?  They've been to one in a row.  The Patriots have been to a couple in a row.  But this is a different era with the salary cap in effect.  That's what makes the Patriots three SB Championships in four years so great.  That they win close games in the SB is what makes them great.  They know how to win close games.  They have Brady and Vinatieri.  Those two are deadly with the game on the line.  It's absolutely no accident or luck that the Patriots won those games.  They are built to win - not to dominate.  That explains their 34-4 record the last two years.  It's simply a dominant record.

405417[/snapback]

 

They were the benificiaries of truly awful choices by their opposing coaching staffs in the 3 wins.

 

C'mon...3, three-point wins in the waning minutes of the 4th quarters? And 2 qualifications for the big game after a "tuck rule" and by any...any objective observer's view with even the most rudimentary understanding of the rules of an absloute refusal of the ref's to do anything about the mugging of the Colt's recievers.

 

I'm not saying they are not a good team - sure they are, but I've never seen 3 more cheesy wins of a SB and I've watched them all since 1966.

[cromagnum]

How are the Eagles looking to match that feat?  They've been to one in a row.  The Patriots have been to a couple in a row.  But this is a different era with the salary cap in effect.  That's what makes the Patriots three SB Championships in four years so great.  That they win close games in the SB is what makes them great.  They know how to win close games.  They have Brady and Vinatieri.  Those two are deadly with the game on the line.  It's absolutely no accident or luck that the Patriots won those games.  They are built to win - not to dominate.  That explains their 34-4 record the last two years.  It's simply a dominant record.

405417[/snapback]

First erenthered I am not trying to be a jerk? Ok as for the eagles I typed before I thought. The eagles did lose 3 straight nfcgc the fourth one they won ,My bad. As for a different era with the salary cap issue, each generation has new hurdle's. I introduced myself as a nfl fan not a pat's fan only.Like i said before I found it amuseing cut and pasteing someones message and finding new topics to discuss.Is there a pat,s site similar to this site? Have a goodnight

[Ljberkow12]

They were the benificiaries of truly awful choices by their opposing coaching staffs in the 3 wins.

 

C'mon...3, three-point wins in the waning minutes of the 4th quarters? And 2 qualifications for the big game after a "tuck rule" and by any...any objective observer's view with even the most rudimentary understanding of the rules of an absloute refusal of the ref's to do anything about the mugging of the Colt's recievers.

 

I'm not saying they are not a good team - sure they are, but I've never seen 3 more cheesy wins of a SB and I've watched them all since 1966.

405452[/snapback]

 

The Colts were not even close to beating the Patriots in the AFC Champioinship Game. Big deal. Their recievers got whacked around a bit. The Panthers did the same thing in their march to the SB. In fact, the Parcells/Belichick Giants smacked the Bills around quite a bit in the "wide right" Super Bowl. That's the way the league was calling those plays until Bill Polian and Mike Martz started to whine.

 

I would agree with you on your "close game theory" but Brady is undefeated in OT games and has an incredible record in games decided in the 4th quarter. They are a team built to win close games. They're tough, smart, and great situational players. You can deny it all you want. It's pathetic how some fans make light of the Patriots incredible run.