ofiba Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Rankings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBilliever Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That gave me a good laugh... the 04 Patriots? Gimme a break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HudsonValleyBillsFan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 This is horsesh-t. The bills 1990 team only 43rd? I don't even know where to begin. The Bills 1990 team would have beaten the 04 patriots by about 40 points 10 out of 10 games they played. In the free agent era I just dont see any defenses that would come within shouting distance of jim kelly with that offensive line they had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 This is horsesh-t.The bills 1990 team only 43rd? I don't even know where to begin. The Bills 1990 team would have beaten the 04 patriots by about 40 points 10 out of 10 games they played. In the free agent era I just dont see any defenses that would come within shouting distance of jim kelly with that offensive line they had. Well, there has been 40 superbowls, so 43rd would seem to be one of the best teams that did not win it all. Not that that matters much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 This is horsesh-t.The bills 1990 team only 43rd? I don't even know where to begin. The Bills 1990 team would have beaten the 04 patriots by about 40 points 10 out of 10 games they played. In the free agent era I just dont see any defenses that would come within shouting distance of jim kelly with that offensive line they had. Was it the defense that shutdown the Bills, or was it Belichick and refusal to give Thurman the ball that shut them down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Face it...during the Super Bowl years, our D sucked. For all the big names we had, that D gave up yardage by the hundred. They couldn't get the other team off the field...so it was a good thing we could score some points. Of course, when it came down to the big game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadofmularkey Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I think they deserve to be ranked better than one spot higher than the 1998 Falcons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Totally unfair to rank the 1990 Bills 43rd. They were good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Totally unfair to rank the 1990 Bills 43rd. They were good. Of course they were! But in any ranking, its always hard to put the teams that lost ahead of ANY team that won. There are only a handful of teams who lost the SB ranked above us. That, combined with the giants team being only 33rd...seems about right to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Nice article. Here's a relevant summary for us Bills fans: #73 - '93 Bills #66 - '92 Bills #52 - '91 Bills #43 - '90 Bills #33 - '90 Giants #17 - '93 Cowboys #10 - '91 Redskins #4 - '92 Cowboys A few quick points of mine: 1. The early 90's D suffered statistically in part because of the O's unusual no-huddle success...i.e., game fatigue. If the article's author were to have used a new statistic - like a ratio of yards given up per game vs. time of possession - I bet those early 90's teams would have been ranked more favorably among the other Super Bowl losers. 2. If the Super Bowl began a couple years earlier, the '64 Bills would have probably ranked higher than the '90 Bills...thereby earning the "greatest team in Bills franchise history" title handed out by the article's author. 3. The NFC talent from 1981-1996 was INSANE, and the article's rankings support this statement. The '90 Bills were the only Buffalo team during this era that had a reasonable shot of winning it all...and they probably would have if not for arguably the greatest coach in NFL history (Belichick). 4. Sports writers have the easiest jobs in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, there has been 40 superbowls, so 43rd would seem to be one of the best teams that did not win it all. Not that that matters much. But that's the very problem with "rankings" like this, and why I pay no attention to them. Clearly, it's not appropriate to simply state that a team that did not win the SB is automatically ranked lower than all 40 who have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 What's funny is that if Buffalo had beaten the Giants, they would have been a top 5 team in that poll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadofmularkey Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Totally unfair to rank the 1990 Bills 43rd. They were good. LSI you were like -2 years old in 1990. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 ESPN Ruffles the feathers of several Bills fans I see........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Was it the defense that shutdown the Bills, or was it Belichick and refusal to give Thurman the ball that shut them down? it was more the fact that the giants O chewed up a lot of clock by handing the ball off to O.J. Anderson. (MVP of the game). The Bills O was hardly on the field and the Giants D was well rested (even tho thurman had over 100 yards) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Well, there has been 40 superbowls, so 43rd would seem to be one of the best teams that did not win it all. Not that that matters much. Yet they ranked several teams that lost the Superbowl ahead of the #43 Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yet they ranked several teams that lost the Superbowl ahead of the #43 Bills. Who cares. It's a completely subjective ranking by some stupid slubs over at ESPN. If I were to rank the stations I get on Direct TV, ESPN would rank somewhere around 120. I hate ESPN, the only watchable show on that channel is PTI. That's it, the rest is geared towards morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That gave me a good laugh... the 04 Patriots? Gimme a break... the computer says Rocky Balboa would be the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 it was more the fact that the giants O chewed up a lot of clock by handing the ball off to O.J. Anderson. (MVP of the game). The Bills O was hardly on the field and the Giants D was well rested (even tho thurman had over 100 yards) Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 I think they deserve to be ranked better than one spot higher than the 1998 Falcons... exactly! i wonder how that falcons team can be ranked higher than number 75! they sucked! The same for the 2002 Raiders at number 57! i'll give them number 79! (number 80 should be that Giants team that was crushed by the Ravens...) and i don't know how they can rank at number 68 the 95 Steelers that dominated the game vs the Boys (But had O' Donnell passing to Dallas all night long...), they should be in the low 40ies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts