vincec Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 The 1990 team was one of the better SB losing teams ever, that's for sure. However, I agree that the reason the Bills returned to the SB the other years was that the AFC was weak compared to the NFC. They were a better team than they showed in the other 3 games though. They played like crap against the Redskins and ran into a Juggernaut in the Cowboys. I argue with my friends about this all the time, but I honestly believe that the 1992 and 1993 Cowboy teams were the best teams ever to play- strong in every area, particularly the OL and DL; tons of speed and big play personnel at the key positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 The 1990 team was one of the better SB losing teams ever, that's for sure. However, I agree that the reason the Bills returned to the SB the other years was that the AFC was weak compared to the NFC. They were a better team than they showed in the other 3 games though. They played like crap against the Redskins and ran into a Juggernaut in the Cowboys. I argue with my friends about this all the time, but I honestly believe that the 1992 and 1993 Cowboy teams were the best teams ever to play- strong in every area, particularly the OL and DL; tons of speed and big play personnel at the key positions. I still remember that the Bills were up 13-6 at the half against the Cowboys in XXVIII. I skipped an indoor soccer game as a kid in order to see what I thought was them finally pulling it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Nah.....They put the beat down on the NFC East teams in regular season games. They where capable of coming back from some HUGE deficits, also blew some teams out of the water early, and never looked back. The thing I remember the most, was that no matter what the situation, the Bills were able to win games no matter what!! BILLS!! Edit: Would they have been as dominant as they were if they didn't run the K-gun?? Honestly, I would have to say not so much. They were the class of the AFC and throttled more than their fair share of the NFC. Lamentably, your friend is 100% correct. I'm calling BS on this one. Earlier in 1990 the Bills played AT the Giants with Bill Parcels leading them and the Bills would have blown them out of the water if not for Kelly getting hurt early in the first half. They still won the game but by a small margin in a rather low scoring game for the Bills. Ultimately I believe that playing that game landed up costing the Bills a Super Bowl victory because Parcels & Co were better prepared for the K Gun offense the second time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddo Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 There's a lot of truth in the fact that the AFC generally, was a fair bit weaker than the NFC at that time. That no doubt helped the Bills to keep returning to the SB. There's also a good deal of truth in the fact that the Bills were a great team of that era, as evidenced by the fact that in regular season games, they mostly beat NFC opposition, including every team that they lost to in a SB (not necessarily in the same season). Imho, the '90's Bills were a truly great team, who fell just short of becoming a true 'Dynasty', through not actually winning any of the SBs they got to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 We had the most talent with the worst coaching. Put a Parcells type coach on our sideline and we win 4 straight super bowls or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 We had the most talent with the worst coaching. Put a Parcells type coach on our sideline and we win 4 straight super bowls or more. thewildrabbit nailed it: "The problems that I noticed were: in that first super bowl with Kelly calling his own plays the Bills simply didn't run Thurman Thomas enough." It was our one true shot at the VL trophy and greedy Jim Kelly screwed us! Yup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 thewildrabbit nailed it: "The problems that I noticed were: in that first super bowl with Kelly calling his own plays the Bills simply didn't run Thurman Thomas enough." It was our one true shot at the VL trophy and greedy Jim Kelly screwed us! Yup! Sorry, I didn't see it that way. The Giants (Parcels & Co aka Bill Belichick) saw enough of the K Gun offense in the earlier regular season game and adjusted their gameplan for it in Super Bowl XXV. What worked for the Bills in the regular season didn't work for them in the Super Bowl. When your offense runs efficently all season and then gets shut down in the course of a game then it's too late to go to another gameplan during that game. Thurman gained those yards because that's what the Giants were willing to concede. This strategy took time off the clock and kept the Bills from scoring like a pinball machine, like they were doing all season long. That Super Bowl had to be played one of two ways. Either the Bills were going to explode on points and force the Giants' plodding offense to try and keep up with them or the Giants were going to slow the game down and keep Buffalo from making explosive plays/scores. Take a guess on who's gameplan prevailed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned yet was the well-documented boozing and partying the Bills were doing leading right up until the big game...I've always wondered if things might've been just a bit different if we could've restrained ourselves for a couple nights and waited till we actually won something before we went celebrating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 Another thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned yet was the well-documented boozing and partying the Bills were doing leading right up until the big game...I've always wondered if things might've been just a bit different if we could've restrained ourselves for a couple nights and waited till we actually won something before we went celebrating I agree. That contributed but mostly the Giants' gameplan prevailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I agree. That contributed but mostly the Giants' gameplan prevailed. The Giants coaching prevailed & they had their back-up QB in as well, we all forget that Hoss led the Giants to victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 they had their back-up QB in as well, we all forget that Hoss led the Giants to victory. I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The 1990 team was one of the better SB losing teams ever, that's for sure. However, I agree that the reason the Bills returned to the SB the other years was that the AFC was weak compared to the NFC. They were a better team than they showed in the other 3 games though. They played like crap against the Redskins and ran into a Juggernaut in the Cowboys. I argue with my friends about this all the time, but I honestly believe that the 1992 and 1993 Cowboy teams were the best teams ever to play- strong in every area, particularly the OL and DL; tons of speed and big play personnel at the key positions. Good point about those Cowboys teams. They had so much talent it was ridiculous. Practically every starter was at or near a Pro Bowl level. Most Super Bowl champions could not have stood up to that juggernaut. The Cowboys would have rolled right over any Super Bowl champion since 2000. The most recent team which could have gone against them on a relatively even footing would have been one of the '49ers squads from back in the '80s. And even then the Cowboys might well have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoName Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I became a bills fan during that year of that first super bowl and been a fan ever since.....so in my eyes...those 90 teams were loaded with talent and great football teams......I just thought that their secondary was the weak link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I became a bills fan during that year of that first super bowl and been a fan ever since.....so in my eyes...those 90 teams were loaded with talent and great football teams......I just thought that their secondary was the weak link The secondary wasn't the best, but it was usually good enough, plus Bruce Smith rushing the passer made the secondary better. It was the rest of that defensive line and some of the O line that was the problem IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The early nineties was a great era in the NFL and for football at all levels, and the AFC was certainly not lacking in talent. It was an era of great quarterbacks, great rivalries, and legendary players. I feel since then the level of play has fallen in many ways. The Bills were a better team than the Giants, and everyone at the time knew it. The '92 Redskins, however, were a juggernaut. They were physically better than their opponents and didnt make many mistakes. I dont want to talk about the Cowboys losses, especially after that last monday night game at home. I haven't felt that way since I lost a 0-0 tie in my high school district finals in quadruple overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Sorry, I didn't see it that way. The Giants (Parcels & Co aka Bill Belichick) saw enough of the K Gun offense in the earlier regular season game and adjusted their gameplan for it in Super Bowl XXV. What worked for the Bills in the regular season didn't work for them in the Super Bowl. When your offense runs efficently all season and then gets shut down in the course of a game then it's too late to go to another gameplan during that game. Thurman gained those yards because that's what the Giants were willing to concede. This strategy took time off the clock and kept the Bills from scoring like a pinball machine, like they were doing all season long. That Super Bowl had to be played one of two ways. Either the Bills were going to explode on points and force the Giants' plodding offense to try and keep up with them or the Giants were going to slow the game down and keep Buffalo from making explosive plays/scores. Take a guess on who's gameplan prevailed? So you think throwing against a 4-1-6 defense should have worked and won the game? When asked about the reason the Bills didn't run the ball more in that SB, Marv Levy replied "you dance with who brought you" meaning they wanted to run the K-gun / no huddle no matter what the NY Giants were going to do on defense. Which IMO was a huge mistake, I mean c'mon, when you see a 4-1-6 defense why not start running the ball. When the defense changes to stop the run you start throwing again,simple stuff. It wasn't just Kelly that didn't adjust to that NY Giants defense,it was also the coaching staff who failed to make the reads and adjust the offense accordingly, perhaps over confidence played a part because they had beaten the Giants earlier in the season at Giant stadium 17-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 When your offense runs efficently all season and then gets shut down in the course of a game then it's too late to go to another gameplan during that game. Thurman gained those yards because that's what the Giants were willing to concede. This strategy took time off the clock and kept the Bills from scoring like a pinball machine, like they were doing all season long. Thurman gained all those yards because he was the MVP of the game(at least he would have been if many sportswriters were aware the MVP didn't have to be from the winning team). He was unstoppable. 135 yards rushing on 15 carries and a TD(9 yards a carry---are you kidding me?) and another 55 yards on 5 receptions...saying the Giants were willing to "give up the yards" to Thurman attempts to downplay the fact that Thurman was a dominant force on offense for us during the game. The strategy the Giants employed was to run the ball themselves to take time off the clock and give the Bills offense as little time on the field as possible. Realistically, it was the only strategy the Giants could have hoped would have been successful ,as the Bills clearly were a more talented team across the board---especially with them starting Jeff Hostetler as their QB... I'm pretty sure the Giants weren't willing to "give up the yards" to Thomas when he scampered in from 31 yards out to give the Bills the lead in the 4th quarter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The Cowboys games were bad, but the Giants game could easily have been a win if the Bills had just run one more play before the field goal. The officiating was horrible in the Washington game and was a major factor in the loss. The officials decided they weren't going to call holding on offense against the Skins or pass interference on defense against the Skins. This killed the Bills because without any holding calls the Skins were able to run the ball down the throat of the Bills. Cornelius Bennett was called for a personal foul because he became so frustrated with the blatant holding and Bruce Smith also complained. And when Andre Reed was badly interfered with and no call was made he got frustrated and threw his helmet down. The official didn't see it but a Redskin player ran to the official and told him about it and the official saw Reed picking up his helmet and called a personal foul on him!!!!! Eventually when the Skins were comfortably ahead the officials did call several off. holding calls on the Skins so the final statistics don't show the extent of the problem. The thing is that game the Bills were horribly screwed by the officials. That was Tagliabue's first year as commissioner and he had previously worked for the Redskins. I don't think he was behind any of this but I think the referees were much more intimidated by Washington, partly because of that. I say the officiating was a major factor in the loss because when a team is allowed to hold on several drives in the first half and gets some TD's and meanwhile the refs refuse to call pass interference and the Bills have to punt it gave the Skins a nice lead that they could hold onto later. They were a good team but the the officiating really helped them out big time and neutralized the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 So you think throwing against a 4-1-6 defense should have worked and won the game? When asked about the reason the Bills didn't run the ball more in that SB, Marv Levy replied "you dance with who brought you" meaning they wanted to run the K-gun / no huddle no matter what the NY Giants were going to do on defense. Which IMO was a huge mistake, I mean c'mon, when you see a 4-1-6 defense why not start running the ball. When the defense changes to stop the run you start throwing again,simple stuff. It wasn't just Kelly that didn't adjust to that NY Giants defense,it was also the coaching staff who failed to make the reads and adjust the offense accordingly, perhaps over confidence played a part because they had beaten the Giants earlier in the season at Giant stadium 17-13. No, I don't think that they should have thrown it as much as they did. I also think that the Bills' coaching staff should have been as prepared as the Giants but they weren't and to try and change their gameplan during the game would have also been disasterous. To think that you can flip flop your offense during a game when you already had a strategy isn't realistic. I don't have a problem admitting that we were outcoached during that game but I wouldn't blame the player(s). They did a decent job of executing what they were given for a gameplan, that's why the game was as close as it was. I also believe that the partying leading up to the game didn't help matters either, that does fall on the player(s). Thurman gained all those yards because he was the MVP of the game(at least he would have been if many sportswriters were aware the MVP didn't have to be from the winning team). He was unstoppable. 135 yards rushing on 15 carries and a TD(9 yards a carry---are you kidding me?) and another 55 yards on 5 receptions...saying the Giants were willing to "give up the yards" to Thurman attempts to downplay the fact that Thurman was a dominant force on offense for us during the game. The strategy the Giants employed was to run the ball themselves to take time off the clock and give the Bills offense as little time on the field as possible. Realistically, it was the only strategy the Giants could have hoped would have been successful ,as the Bills clearly were a more talented team across the board---especially with them starting Jeff Hostetler as their QB... I'm pretty sure the Giants weren't willing to "give up the yards" to Thomas when he scampered in from 31 yards out to give the Bills the lead in the 4th quarter.... No, I said that that was what they were willing to concede. They did not want Kelly & Co tearing them up. They took away part, and a big part it was, of our offense and made it more one dimensional. Kelly's stats were modest to say the least and Thurman's stats were great. What does that tell you? It tells me that the Giants weren't going to allow the passing game to beat them and it didn't. I'm not naive, nor the Giants, enough to think that the Giants were going to completely shut down our high octane offense but they instead opted to take away the most dangerous part of it and keep the clock ticking. It worked, deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
folz Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 It seems to me that the idea that the AFC was weak in those days was because the NFC had won a string of Superbowls (often in a blowout) and many of those years you could argue that maybe the 2nd best team in the league (or 3 out of 4 of the top teams) were also in the NFC. But top to bottom AFC vs. NFC, there wasn't that big a difference. And as others have stated, outside of the four Superbowls, the Bills dominated the NFC (as well as the AFC) in regular season games. The way I see it: 1990...no doubt Bills were the best team in the league, but lost the SB due to partying, overconfidence, and an excellent coaching job by the Bills (Parcells and Bellicheat that is) At that point...the league, especially the NFC started moving to a strategy of building big lines and now the league also had a blueprint to beat the K-gun, if they were talented enough to do so...which most still weren't 1991...I still think the Bills were the best team in the league, but the stars did seem to align for that Washington team and their new Hogs (big O-line) were a bad match-up for our undersized D-line. Then came Dallas...and as much as I hate to admit it Dallas probably was the better team 1993...Dallas best in the league, Bills were still probably the second best team in the league 1994...the Bills window was starting to close, as players had been lost or aged (as happens with all good teams) this season they weren't one of the very top teams anymore, but they still had a lot of talent and I really think they willed themselves to that Superbowl where they were again killed by Dallas (again because of Dallas' big linemen on both sides of the ball who were able to control the line of scrimmage). But don't get me wrong, the 1990s Bills teams WERE that good...one of the best (top five) offenses in the history of the NFL, the best DE in the history of the NFL, the best all-purpose back since Jim Brown, at least 6 deservedly Hall of Fame players, they revitalized Special Teams in the NFL (at a time when ST was an after- thought to most teams)...they beat the same Giants team they lost to in the Superbowl just 3 weeks before that Superbowl and they beat Dallas in a regular season game the season after their first SB loss to them... the 1990s Bills definitely were not just beating up on weaker teams, they were damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts