Bills are a Good Team
felix lee
who doesn't respect making the SuperBowl four consecutive times is just
another media hype slave who should talk to the legion of players that
never made it. Ask OJ Simpson how many records he would trade just for the
privledge of losing to the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. It's an impressive
acheivement, period. Loads of fans would have deified Joe Montana for taking
K.C. to the SuperBowl once, but the Bills can't get any respect.
I think Dallas will win, and win impressively. The Bills are just
unfortunate that they've run into some outstanding teams that have emerged
from the NFC. When they play Dallas on Sunday, they will encounter
the fastest defense that has ever taken the field in the NFL, and an
impressively balanced and talented offense. Even if they can't win in the
Super Bowl there are still 26 teams right now that would sell their
firstborn to trade places with the Bills right now (okay, maybe I exaggerate).
The Bills have got Pro-Bowl talent calibre at every position, and
shouldn't be taken lightly. You can bet the house that Jimmy Johnson isn't.
Until they win the big one they can't be touted as the very best, but
they certainly don't deserve all the grief they've been getting.
That's all for now,
Felix Lee
--
____________________________________________________________________________
| "Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Felix Lee | Missing me one place search another,
ches...@leland.stanford.edu | I stop somewhere waiting for you."
Steve Hammond
> All this hostility and ridicule directed at the Bills is just silly. Anyone
> who doesn't respect making the SuperBowl four consecutive times is just
> another media hype slave who should talk to the legion of players that
> never made it. Ask OJ Simpson how many records he would trade just for the
> privledge of losing to the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. It's an impressive
> acheivement, period. Loads of fans would have deified Joe Montana for taking
> K.C. to the SuperBowl once, but the Bills can't get any respect.
>
> I think Dallas will win, and win impressively. The Bills are just
> unfortunate that they've run into some outstanding teams that have emerged
> from the NFC. When they play Dallas on Sunday, they will encounter
> the fastest defense that has ever taken the field in the NFL, and an
> impressively balanced and talented offense. Even if they can't win in the
> Super Bowl there are still 26 teams right now that would sell their
> firstborn to trade places with the Bills right now (okay, maybe I exaggerate).
> The Bills have got Pro-Bowl talent calibre at every position, and
> shouldn't be taken lightly. You can bet the house that Jimmy Johnson isn't.
> Until they win the big one they can't be touted as the very best, but
> they certainly don't deserve all the grief they've been getting.
crushed in Dallas, many will argue that the Bills are one of the top
two teams in the NFL. Unlike last year when SF couldn't even win
at home in the Championship game and still tried to argue that that
game was the real superbowl. There are no such arguments from the
left coast. :-) Dallas has a better team than Buffalo. That's not
Buffalo's fault. All these bitter folks who hate to think of another
superbowl with Buffalo would groan even more if KC or Houston was
there. If these teams can't even get by Buffalo they sure as hell
wouldn't have a fighting chance against the Cobwoys. If Buffalo
can shut down KC's passing game and can sack Montana four times,
what chance would Montana have against Haley and Jeffcoat and Co.
If KC can come back on Buddy's 46 Defense and if Montana can make
an ordinary receiving corp look like world beaters against Houston
then what do you think Aikman would do with real stars like Irvin
and Harper, not to mention Novacek and Emmitt coming out of the
backfield??? I'm making some pretty huge assumptions but you get
my point. Take your AFC sour grapes and watch golf on ESPN this
Sunday evening. Buffalo is the best in the AFC and earned the right
to be in Atlanta.
Steve, hoping the Bills keep it close :-)
--
Steve Hammond ham...@ncar.ucar.edu * ^ /\/\ * /\
Scientific Computing Division /\*\ \ \/\ \_][
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO \____
Dale McCray
Y'know, it's just possible that the Cowboys are going to face one of
the all time great teams of the NFL, and we just don't know it yet.
Imagine what a Bills victory would mean. The team and their players
would become synonymous with perseverance; the epitome of determination.
To come so close to reaching the ultimate prize, only to have their
dreams squashed, to face and conquer the Dallas juggernaut after everyone
had written them off. Why, it would permanently transform their image
to the ultimate example of overcoming hardship through mental toughness.
Picture it, 40 yrs. from now, you are talking with your grandson:
"Hey, Grampa, look at little Thurmon go. He keeps trying to walk
with the perseverance of the Bills. Say, where does that expression
come from, anyway?"
"Well, there was this football team back in the 90s. No, it was in
twenty ought six. No, wait a minute, ought six was the year they
canceled Blossum. Twenty ought eight! Yup, that's it, 'cause I
remember they perfected no-cal cottage cheese that year. Your
Grandma used to eat it with lettuce. They used to say "if pesticides
are outlawed, only criminals will have tomatoes." 'Course, that
was before the big frost of seventeen... "
...... NAH.
--
I saw dyslexic, but I'm K.O. now.
mcc...@crchh608.BNR.CA
hti...@vax.clarku.edu
to face three exceptional teams in the past three 'bowls, and that they
don't receive enough credit for what they have done. But I have to assume
that it is the goal of every player to win the superbowl, so when the
Buffalo players (particularly Kelly) act like they're satisfied with
their accomplishments, I'm not sure I buy it.
edward.lor
>The last time the Bills played the Giants they won and the last
>time they played the 9ers (at the stick) they won. Can you say
>sour grapes?
The last time the Bills played the Cowboys they won too. So you must
be saying that the Bills are a better team than the Cowboys, right?
No? Then what does regular season head-to-head really mean? It doesn't
really determine the merits between the teams. Then why bring up this
particular regular season game? Is it an attempt to mislead?
Yes? OK, the last time the Bills played the Steelers they lost. So you
must be saying that the Steelers are a better team than the Bills.
Hmm... glad to see a confession that the Bills aren't even #1 in the AFC.
Take your pick....
--
Edward Lor
l...@cbnewsk.att.com
Against All Odds
[Stuff deleted]
>The purpose of the Superbowl is to let the champions of each conference
>play each other. The winner is proclaimed world champion.
>What's wrong with that?
Nothing, but the loser is not necessarily second best!
> Steve, the objective Bills fan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A much disputed opinion.
>--
>Steve Hammond ham...@ncar.ucar.edu * ^ /\/\ * /\
> Scientific Computing Division /\*\ \ \/\ \_][
>National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO \____
-Doug
--
Against All Odds
University of Rochester
db0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Satish Nair
ane...@adcs00.fnal.gov (Anthony Anello) writes:
>
>You cite regular season play as the basis of your comparisons, i.e. the 49'ers
>and Giants are better than the Bills-
>
>NOT SO.
>
>The 49'ers 1) destroyed the Giants (eliminate Giants from discussion).
Ah but you forget... Bills lost to the Dolphins and the Dolphins were
beaten by the Giants hence put Giants back on the list.
> 2) lost three of their last four including games to Houston
> (who were beaten in the second round) and Philadelphia
> (did not make playoffs, lost to Buffalo reg. season).
> 3) lost to the Atlanta Falcons who did not make playoffs.
> 4) were themselves BLOWN OUT by Dallas in the NFC title game.
>
Again:
1. Bills lost to the Steelers in the regular season.
2. Steelers were eliminated from the playoffs by the Chiefs.
3. Joe Montana plys for the Chiefs.
4. Jot Montana was traded to the Chiefs by the Niners which means that the
Niners consider their QB (Young) to be more valuable to them then Montana.
5. Said QB Steve Young plays for the Niners.
Hence... the Niners could beat the Bills :-)
satish nair
giants
T.S.Reddy
>All this hostility and ridicule directed at the Bills is just silly. Anyone
>who doesn't respect making the SuperBowl four consecutive times is just
>another media hype slave who should talk to the legion of players that
>never made it. Ask OJ Simpson how many records he would trade just for the
>privledge of losing to the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. It's an impressive
>acheivement, period. Loads of fans would have deified Joe Montana for taking
>K.C. to the SuperBowl once, but the Bills can't get any respect.
>
>That's all for now,
>
>Felix Lee
Sorry, but if the playoff games at least were played between the NFC
and AFC, rather than as separate conferences, I doubt the Bills would have
lasted this long. The Giants or the 9ers would have sent them packing by now
and the chance that the #1 and #2 teams in the NFL being in the Super-Bowl
would be that much greater. Why doesn't the NFL consider this? At least
then there would be some real substance to the Super-Bowl hype rather than
make it into something like a WWF fight. I doubt the current format is
good for the long-term prospects of the league.
Donald Pajerek
>In article <2ib3l6...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, swil...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes:
>
>> It's not by coincidence that the Bills have encountered outstanding
>> teams from NFC.
Everyone talks about how the NFC has won X out of the last Y Super
Bowls, but you need to look at how few NFC teams were involved in
those games. The Redskins and 49ers alone account for 7 or 8 appearances.
I don't think that the NFC is better overall than the AFC, but the
best NFC teams sure do seem to be better than the best AFC teams,
by which I mean the top 1 or 2.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Steve Hammond
You seem to have taken yours. You picked two sentences out of context
in which you draw a conclusion that I did not imply. The original
poster claimed:
In article <mke0e9...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, (T.S.Reddy) writes:
> ... if the playoff games at least were played between the NFC
> and AFC, rather than as separate conferences, I doubt the Bills would have
> lasted this long. The Giants or the 9ers would have sent them packing by now.
I simply countered that other than the two recent dismal superbowl
performances Buffalo has a very good playoff record and mixing playoffs
to the top teams of the NFL, independent of conference, would not necessarily
change anything concerning the Bills, despite the claims of T.S. Reddy.
Furthermore, based only on the most recent head to head meetings, there
is no reason to think that the Giants or 9ers would absolutely eliminate
Buffalo. Also, take into account the recent stellar performances of
these two NFC "powerhouses".
So, feel free to pick and choose sentences out of context and use
them the way YOU want but don't put words in MY mouth. Who is
misleading who??? Jeez, some people.
Steve, the objective Bills fan :-)
Anthony Anello
>text deleted...
> Sorry, but if the playoff games at least were played between the NFC
>and AFC, rather than as separate conferences, I doubt the Bills would have
>lasted this long. The Giants or the 9ers would have sent them packing by now
>and the chance that the #1 and #2 teams in the NFL being in the Super-Bowl
>would be that much greater. Why doesn't the NFL consider this? At least
>then there would be some real substance to the Super-Bowl hype rather than
>make it into something like a WWF fight. I doubt the current format is
>good for the long-term prospects of the league.
Excuse my beligerance but it's getting close to game time and I'm a little
tense so-
ONCE AND FOR FRIGGING ALL the Bills are at least the NO. 2 team in the NFL
this year and deserve to be there blowout or not.
You cite regular season play as the basis of your comparisons, i.e. the 49'ers
and Giants are better than the Bills-
NOT SO.
The 49'ers 1) destroyed the Giants (eliminate Giants from discussion).
2) lost three of their last four including games to Houston
(who were beaten in the second round) and Philadelphia
(did not make playoffs, lost to Buffalo reg. season).
3) lost to the Atlanta Falcons who did not make playoffs.
4) were themselves BLOWN OUT by Dallas in the NFC title game.
HOW THE FREAK DO YOU FIGURE THESE TEAMS ARE BETTER THAN THE BILLS?
ANSWER- YOUR OWN STUBBORN PIG-HEADED IGNORANT NFC BIAS.
Oh- one final word, this season the AFC won more games head to head with
NFC teams.
Steve Hammond
>
> Sorry, but if the playoff games at least were played between the NFC
> and AFC, rather than as separate conferences, I doubt the Bills would have
> lasted this long. The Giants or the 9ers would have sent them packing by now
> and the chance that the #1 and #2 teams in the NFL being in the Super-Bowl
> would be that much greater. Why doesn't the NFL consider this? At least
> then there would be some real substance to the Super-Bowl hype rather than
> make it into something like a WWF fight. I doubt the current format is
> good for the long-term prospects of the league.
The last time the Bills played the Giants they won and the last
time they played the 9ers (at the stick) they won. Can you say
sour grapes? Other than their two dismal superbowl performances,
the Bills have had a tremendous playoff record in the past
6 years. I don't think it would change if they played some of
those NFC pretenders rather than AFC teams, but that's my opinion.
Also, I believe that Buffalo would have still had home field advantage
regardless of the playoff format. No one had a better record than they
did and they beat both Houston and Dallas in the regular season.
Besides, the way those mighty Giants and the 9ers played in the playoffs
this year I can see what you mean. No doubt they would have creamed
every AFC team with both hands tied behind their back.
The purpose of the Superbowl is to let the champions of each conference
play each other. The winner is proclaimed world champion.
What's wrong with that?
I think your (arguments) are made of papier mache'.
Steve, the objective Bills fan.
--
Williams
writes:
>The Bills are the best team in the AFC.
Unfortunately, AFC isn't the best in NFL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Williams swil...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams
>All this hostility and ridicule directed at the Bills is just silly.
Not just the Bills but also other AFC teams that make it to the Super
Bowl. When you consider the fact that the NFC teams have won the last
nine Super Bowls, including the last several by lopsided scores, there
has to be an explanation. The only plausible explanation is that AFC
isn't as good as NFC.
The NFC teams seems to have improved faster than the AFC teams in the
past decade, particularly in defense. NFC East is particularly known
for its defense. The fact that the NY Giants was able to keep the score
low and defeat the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl bears this out. I've
noticed that some AFC teams have been focusing on their defense in the
past two years, including the Bills.
I may be wrong, but it seems that too many AFC teams rely on passing
instead of rushing; i.e., the run-n-shoot offense. The basic football
theory is that you have to establish a running game if you're going
to win championship games. It is the running game that controls the
clock and therefore the game. However, in the recent Bills' victory
over the Chiefs, the Bills made a good use of their running game, which
may be a sign of better times ahead for them.
>I think Dallas will win, and win impressively. The Bills are just
>unfortunate that they've run into some outstanding teams that have
>emerged from the NFC. When they play Dallas on Sunday, they will
>encounter the fastest defense that has ever taken the field in the
>NFL, and an impressively balanced and talented offense.
It's not by coincidence that the Bills have encountered outstanding
teams from NFC. NFC has raised its level of playing in the past decade
whereas AFC hasn't. Better defense is one example. Better and more
balanced offense is another example (the 49ers with 4 SB victories,
the Redskins with 3 SB victories, and the Cowboys with 1 SB victory
and to be in another SB this Sunday).
Ken Kaufman
> Sorry, but if the playoff games at least were played between the NFC
>and AFC, rather than as separate conferences, I doubt the Bills would have
>lasted this long. The Giants or the 9ers would have sent them packing by now
>and the chance that the #1 and #2 teams in the NFL being in the Super-Bowl
>would be that much greater. Why doesn't the NFL consider this? At least
>then there would be some real substance to the Super-Bowl hype rather than
>make it into something like a WWF fight. I doubt the current format is
>good for the long-term prospects of the league.
Hmmmm ... One person's hunches:
Round 1:
(12) Green Bay vs. (5) Kansas City. Chiefs
(11) Minnesota vs. (6) Detroit. Vikings
(10) Pittsburgh vs. (7) New York. Giants
(9) Denver vs. (8) Los Angeles. Didn't we see this one?
Round 2:
(11) Minnesota vs. (1) Buffalo. Bills
(8) Los Angeles vs. (2) Houston. Just maybe Oilers don't gag just yet.
(7) New York vs. (3) Dallas. Cowboys
(5) Kansas City vs. (4) San Francisco. The game everyone wanted to see.
Semis:
KC/SF at Buffalo, Dallas at Houston.
or
LA at Buffalo, KC/SF at Dallas.
The above assumes current tiebreakers with heavy emphasis on common
opponents. It also assumes division winners get the top 6 seeds and
the brackets are recombined each round based on the remaining seedings.
By such reckoning, the Bills have home field throughout the playoffs and
will be equally tough to beat in Orchard Park. So I strongly doubt that
Buffalo would have had a harder trip to the finals. Dallas and San
Francisco, on the other hand, are bumped down to 3 and 4 seeds, and thus
have to endure the prospect of life on the road.
We've seen LA and KC try. Would you really bet on SF to win at Buffalo
in January????
==Ken
Michael Cook
>In article <mke0e9...@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, tsr...@skitime.Eng.Sun.COM (T.S.Reddy) writes:
>> [stuff about Giants, Niners, and other NFC teams]
>The last time the Bills played the Giants they won and the last
>time they played the 9ers (at the stick) they won. Can you say
>sour grapes? Other than their two dismal superbowl performances,
>the Bills have had a tremendous playoff record in the past
>6 years. I don't think it would change if they played some of
>those NFC pretenders rather than AFC teams, but that's my opinion.
>Also, I believe that Buffalo would have still had home field advantage
>regardless of the playoff format. No one had a better record than they
>did and they beat both Houston and Dallas in the regular season.
Agreed, mostly. I think the only teams that really would have matched up
well with Buffalo in the playoffs are Dallas, Houston, Raiders (yes, I
said that) and the Vikings. These teams all have a strong defense and
competent offense in common. I think San Francisco would have been
beaten by the Bills in the playoffs simply because they wouldn't have the
defense to hang w/ them. All this is idle speculation, anyway. The
bottom line is, I think they are one of the top 4 teams in the NFL this
year, regardless of playoff system.
>Besides, the way those mighty Giants and the 9ers played in the playoffs
>this year I can see what you mean. No doubt they would have creamed
>every AFC team with both hands tied behind their back.
>The purpose of the Superbowl is to let the champions of each conference
>play each other. The winner is proclaimed world champion.
>What's wrong with that?
Agreed. For the past several years, the best team in the NFL has been from
the NFC. That doesn't mean that the NFC is a better conference. I'm
probably wrong on this, since I don't have the stats in front of me, but
I believe the AFC won more of the cross-conference matchups this year. At
least the last time I checked in the middle of the year the AFC had a lead.
The Bills contributed heavily to the AFC win total, sweeping the admittedly
weaker NFC East. Houston beat San Fran in their own house.
>I think your (arguments) are made of papier mache'.
Naw, moist toilet paper.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Michael Cook | |
| chi...@cis.ksu.edu --+-- |
| m...@matt.ksu.edu | |
| "If the Gold rust, what then will the iron do?" | |
| -Chaucer, Canterbury Tales |
| Go Cats! Go Chiefs! Go Royals! (am I a masochist or what?) |
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Steve Hammond
>
> >All this hostility and ridicule directed at the Bills is just silly.
>
> Not just the Bills but also other AFC teams that make it to the Super
> Bowl. When you consider the fact that the NFC teams have won the last
> nine Super Bowls, including the last several by lopsided scores, there
> has to be an explanation. The only plausible explanation is that AFC
> isn't as good as NFC.
The "only plausible explanation"??? Give us a break.
How do you truly measure which conference is better than the other?
You are trying to say that one game each year is the sole determination
of the strength of an entire conference, 14 teams. You have got to be
joking.
> The NFC teams seems to have improved faster than the AFC teams in the
> past decade, particularly in defense. NFC East is particularly known
> for its defense. The fact that the NY Giants was able to keep the score
> low and defeat the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl bears this out.
How do you measure this "improvement"? Again, you only site one game.
In fact, my recollection of this particular superbowl was that the
Giants' OFFENSE did most of the work by playing a ball control game
and chewing up large chunks of time in single drives. In the recent
showing on ESPN of NFL films' superbowl highlights, they said that
between Buffalo's last posession of the first half and it first
possession in the second half, more than an hour had elapsed. The
Giants defense didn't have much to do with that. The D did employ
extra defensive backs to hammer the receivers and they did play
excellent defense but the offensive, ball control, strategy is what
was so remarkable in that game. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the best defense
is a good ball control offense. That's what you meant?
> I may be wrong, but it seems that too many AFC teams rely on passing
> instead of rushing; i.e., the run-n-shoot offense. The basic football
> theory is that you have to establish a running game if you're going
> to win championship games. It is the running game that controls the
> clock and therefore the game. However, in the recent Bills' victory
> over the Chiefs, the Bills made a good use of their running game, which
> may be a sign of better times ahead for them.
The Bills benefited from a KC secondary that was decimated by injury
and outstanding line play by the Bill's offensive line that gave
Kelly lots of protection to pass and opened huge holes for Therman.
KC seemed to think that Buffalo would rely on the passing game and
didn't make any overt attempt to really stuff the run until the second
half. I don't expect any such gifts from Dallas.
The teams running "run-n-shoot" type offenses are Detroit and Houston.
That's one from each conference. How can you conclude that it is
an AFC thang.
> It's not by coincidence that the Bills have encountered outstanding
> teams from NFC. NFC has raised its level of playing in the past decade
> whereas AFC hasn't. Better defense is one example. Better and more
> balanced offense is another example (the 49ers with 4 SB victories,
> the Redskins with 3 SB victories, and the Cowboys with 1 SB victory
> and to be in another SB this Sunday).
You cannot conclude that the whole conference is better just
because there is one or two dominant teams from the NFC that happen to be
much better than any team in the AFC some particular year. This year
I think that Dallas is the best in the NFL but disagree with the way
you extrapolate to conclude that therefore the NFC is the better
conference. If in fact that is true, why did the AFC win more regular
season NFC-AFC games? Why did Buffalo go 4-0 against the NFC this
year? I think that the regular season inter-conference games are
a much better indication of the strength of an entire conference than
the superbowl results that only pit the best team from each conference.
The last 9 wins have been from the NFC which means they had the best
team, not necessarily that they had the best overall conference.
Perhaps it is the case the the NFC plays a different kind of
football in the playoffs than the AFC. It seems to me that the AFC
now does rely on more of a finess game and less on a ground game/
bruising defense/clock control/field position battle. I think that
the 9ers have failed to advance beyond the Conference Championship
game lately because their running game has slipped since the hey day
of Roger Craig (Watters did have a good year this year though) and
most importantly the defense is not as dominant. Receivers feared
going over the middle because of Ronnie Lott. They have no such
fears with the current DBs of SF. To me it was the offense that
got all the press but the defense of the 9ers really won the
games. That's just how I recall it... Your mileage may vary.
Your arguments are pretty hollow about a more dominant conference.
You sight one piece of dubious "evidence" to back up your claim
and then make huge leaps to say that it is conclusive. Well, it ain't
to anyone but a completely biased NFC fan. :-)
Steve, the objective Bills fan. :-)
Dr. Rajeev Raman
>In rec.sport.football.pro, ches...@leland.Stanford.EDU (felix lee) writes:
>
> >All this hostility and ridicule directed at the Bills is just silly.
>
>Not just the Bills but also other AFC teams that make it to the Super
>Bowl. When you consider the fact that the NFC teams have won the last
>nine Super Bowls, including the last several by lopsided scores, there
>has to be an explanation. The only plausible explanation is that AFC
As I have pointed out in an earlier post, the NFC championship game
has been close about as often as the Superbowl in these last nine
years. This makes it clear that by play-off time there is often
one team (from the NFC these last nine years) that is capable of
stomping all competition, including their NFC opponents (Skins '91,
49ers '89, Giants '86 etc.).
Extrapolating from the Superbowl to determine the relative strengths
of the conferences therefore does not make sense. The perceived
strength of some NFC teams (such as Philly, New Orleans) is because
they play other NFC teams (the eventual SB winner among them) tough
in the regular season. Well, the AFC plays the NFC tough in the
regular season.
For your theory of the NFC being superior to the AFC to hold water:
(A) the NFC should have a significant edge over the AFC in regular-season play.
* Simply not true.
(B) the NFC playoffs should be competitive (which would prove there were sevral
NFC teams capable of winning the SB against their eventual AFC opponent).
* The only case of this happening in the last few years is last year where
Dallas and SF were considered the #1 and #2 teams in the NFL. Even so,
the Bills did beat SF at home in the regular season that year.
rr
--
-----
Dr. Rajeev Raman, Faculty Research Associate
ra...@umiacs.umd.edu
UMIACS, A.V. Williams Bldg, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
felix lee
reorganized because it keeps sending the "unworthy" Bills to the
SuperBowl. How much difference would this have made? And who would you
have sent in their place? Let's look at the last four years the Bills
made the SuperBowl:
1991: The Bills lose a close game to the Giants. The case that Buffalo was
the second best team in the NFL is pretty strong, given the outcome of
the final game and the records. THe only other candidate would be the Niners
who also lost a close game in the NFC Championship. Can you make a
convincing case that the Niners were clearly better than the Bills that
year? Arguably all three teams were about the same level, but the Giants
got the breaks in both games, which can make the difference in games
between very evenly matched teams. I don't see a real miscarraige of
justice here.
1992: Bills get blown out by the Redskins. Again, what NFC team you send
in their place? Detroit? They got crushed by the Redskins in the
championship game. Dallas? They got leveled by Detroit in the playoffs.
Dallas might have made it a closer game, given the matchups and the rivalry,
but if you follow that logic than Atlanta or Washington should be in
the Super Bowl this year, given their performances against Dallas. I think
the evidence is pretty strong in this year that Buffalo was second-best,
but still far behind the Redskins (like every other team). Nothing here
to suggest that the entire conference playoff system be realigned.
1993: Bills get killed by Dallas. The case that the Bills didn't belong
is probably strongest this year, but still there is only one team from
the NFC that you could claim was clearly stronger than the Bills (the
Niners). Even then, the Bills beat the Niners in the regular season. You
can't say that Philadelphia or Washington deserved to be in the SuperBowl
ahead of Buffalo, so this year you get #1 against #3. No point in
restructuring the playoffs. Even if you did, there's no guarantee that
Dallas and S.F. don't meet earlier in the playoffs, giving you the exact
same result.
1994: Bills get destroyed by Dallas (if they don't, the point is moot,
right?) You would you send this year? The Niners? They get blown out
too. The Giants? Would this matchup be any better? The way the Giants
looked against the Niners, there's no way they would have survived to
even get to the SuperBowl. The Bills beat both in the regular season,
too. The Bills play better defense than the Niners, and have a better
offense than the Giants.
As an illustration, let's suppose that the present system were abolished,
and all the teams were put into the same pool and seeded. The seeds would
probably look something like this:
1. Buffalo (Gets #1 on basis of win over Dallas)
2. Dallas (Gets #2 because...well, just because. Overall records are tied
and conference records are moot now. How do you determine seeds? I don't
know.)
3. Houston (Better record than S.F.)
4. S.F.
If the playoffs go on, it very likely that the last four teams would be:
1. Buffalo
2. Dallas
4. S.F.
x. Lower seeded team that won when Houston choked. Probably K.C., maybe the
Giants.
What would your championship games look like? You guessed it. Dallas-S.F.,
and Buffalo-"Team that got lucky enough to be paired against Houston the
game before the championship." Sounds familiar, huh? I'm not saying this
would definitely happen, but this is just one scenario (and a likely one,
at that) where changing the playffs wouldn't make any difference.
Against All Odds
>You know nothing about football, or in this matter sports, do you Satish?
>The dumpest comment in sports is " If A beats B, B beats C, then A beats C."
>If everything is so mathematical, why bother even play the game?!
>There is much more to the Game than just all the things on papers. Every
>game is a new game and the beauty of the sports is a so-called
>underdog comes out victorious.
Not this time Michael!
>As Kennth Davis said "People in Western New York will be dancing on the
>streets come Monday!", there will be a lot of joys and tears in Buffalo.
Only tears and it won't be dancing. The city will riot and demand the
execution of all the members of the Bills! :-)
>Go Bills!!!!!!!
>-michael
P.S. Michael, didn't you notice the 'smiley'?
He was joking you dork!
Cowboys 34
Bills 17
I'm not on a bandwagon, just predicting the outcome, damn it!
Against All Odds
[BS deleted]
>Cowboys 34
>Bills 17
>I'm not on a bandwagon, just predicting the outcome, damn it!
Not bad either! :-)
Ronnie Townsend
>In article <2ib9h9$3...@ncar.ucar.edu> ham...@odin.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Hammond) writes:
>>In article <2ib3l6...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, swil...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes:
>>
>>> It's not by coincidence that the Bills have encountered outstanding
>>> teams from NFC.
>
>Everyone talks about how the NFC has won X out of the last Y Super
>Bowls, but you need to look at how few NFC teams were involved in
>those games. The Redskins and 49ers alone account for 7 or 8 appearances.
Bzzztt!!! '84 Niners.. '85 Bears.. '86 Giants... '87 Skins... '88 Niners.. '89
Niners.. 90' Giants.. 91' Skins '92 Dallas.. '93 Dallas.... The NFC has wons
10 in a row... with five different teams.. Next excuse for the AFC falling on
its face?
>
>I don't think that the NFC is better overall than the AFC, but the
>best NFC teams sure do seem to be better than the best AFC teams,
>by which I mean the top 1 or 2.
All this business aside... I'd like to state that unlike last year when the
Bills were perhaps not as good as three or four of the teams the Cowboys
trampled on the was to the Super Bowl.. this year they were as good as anybody
in the NFC except Dallas... The problem is.. Dallas is a lot better than
anybody in the NFC, the AFC, the WAC the SEC you name it... I thought the Bills
did a great job of executing the short passing game against the Cowboys in the
first half but you knew that Johnson would bring the DBs up in the second half
to counter. Smith and Brown are so fast that they really didn't have to worry
about Buffalo getting deep anyway. Thurman Thomas? What a choke artist! He
has wrested the all-time choke artist mantle from the likes of Fran Tarkenton,
John Elway and of course.. Jim Kelly... I wish I could read the Buffalo papers
today! The Bills are definitely a good team with some great players... but they
are NOT a great team no matter what anybody says.. They handed the biggest game
of their lives back to Dallas... That's not entirely true.. it's more accurate
to say they stood by helplessly as Dallas came in and TOOK the game.. ripped it
out of their hands with Lett's stripping of Thomas... this after Thomas had
juked Lett into the stands on that TD run... Emmitt???? Who's the best
running back in the NFL? WHy is there even any discussion? That first drive
in the third quarter was stuff of legend... and all this will playing with
a hornet's nest in his right shoulder... Think about this AFC/Bills/Niner
fans.. Dallas was 17 points better than the best you could throw at them...
and they were only at about 90%... I shudder to think what would have happened
to the Niners or Buffalo if Emmitt, Maryland, Haley and Norton all been
healthy! Four key players all with significant injuries.. and they are still
head and shoulders above the crowd.. And let's not even mention that their
starting "All-pro" center missed the game and a starting guard was playing in
his place.. thereby weakening two positions on the o-line... I don't think
it is at all premature to rank this team among the all-time great teams in the
NFL... If they weren't so young we'd be contemplating Hall of Fame votes for
a number of them... Aikman, Irvin, Smith and that marvelous offensive line..
Sort "the Hogs with footspeed..." And as a 25 year fan of this team... I feel
it is my duty to list the Landry-draftpicks who played key roles in this game.
Jeffcoat, Bates, Newton, Gogan, Tuinei, Irvin, Norton and technically, Aikman
because Landry had made it known that he intended to draft Troy with the #1
pick that year. Thanks, Tom... for leaving the team pointed in the right
direction. He may no longer have been a great coach when he got booted and
he probably would never have made the Herschel deal... but I suspect that
Behind this line, "Hushel" would have been pretty damned productive as well...
but I LOVE EMMITT!!!
--
Ronnie T.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineer Specialist
Amdahl Open Systems Technical Support
- Raised in Florida (miss it badly)
- Harvard Class of '82
- Lead vocalist for "This Side Up" coming to a jazz club near you!
- 33 years old, still runs a 4.4 40 and has great hands... anybody need a
smurf wide receiver?!
Daniel Welch
>All this business aside... I'd like to state that unlike last year when the
>Bills were perhaps not as good as three or four of the teams the Cowboys
>trampled on the was to the Super Bowl.. this year they were as good as anybody
>in the NFC except Dallas... The problem is.. Dallas is a lot better than
>anybody in the NFC, the AFC, the WAC the SEC you name it...
The ironic thing is that even though the Bills were as good as anyone except
the Cowboys, this Bills team was a step down from the last three (IMHO).
BTW, The NFC East has now won six of the last eight Super Bowls, with two
each going to New York, Washington, and Dallas. If that doesn't show that
the NFC East has been the best division over the last decade or so, I don't
know what would.
Daniel Welch