FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 05/14, 03:37 AM
41-1-3 in the last 30? You find a following, or something? ;-)

Four straight years the Bills lost the Super Bowl. Amazing accomplishment to get there 4 years in a row, but still, they were just the best of the worst. People talk about an AFC dominance now have no clue. Back then the NFC was not only dominant, the AFC had almost zero chance.

Not only did the bills lose 4 straight years, they lost all of them to teams in the same DIVISION in the NFC. Clearly the NFC East alone was better than any TEAM in the AFC those years.

I love Marv Levy, Thurman Thomas, and Jim Kelly. They played some of the most amazing playoff games I've ever seen. Great team.

But, not a team that could hope to compete with their NFC counterpart. Yeah, you can demonize the kicker in the Giants game. It was all HIS fault, right? Who gets the blame in the two blowout losses to Dallas? Personally, I love the Bills and that whole pre-salary cap era of football.

Point is, the Bills, although dominating the AFC back then were only the 5th or 6th best team in the NFL.

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 05/14, 06:02 PM
I don't know where you are going with individual stats. Certainly individuals can have a great personal performance from either conference. That AFC offenses dominated AFC defenses in 1990 and 1991 doesn't really mean much to this argument.

None of it has anything to do with the complete and utter dominance of the NFC in the dozen years leading up to the salary cap.

Consider this. From 1985 - 1996 The NFC was 12-0 in Super Bowls. Outscoring the AFC an incredible 455-198. Average score in the Super Bowl in that run:

NFC 38 AFC 17

The Bills were best of the losers...losing 4 of them and being outscored 139-71. Average score 35-18. Slightly better than the overall AFC average but still an embarrassing average margin of loss of 17 points. And that's with the Norwood game factored in

"1991 - For starters, Thurman Thomas was the NFL MVP from the weaker AFC."

No doubt they had a great offense that year. But you leave out the fact they were ranked 27th (out of 28 teams at the time) on DEFENSE. Go back to that average margin of loss in those Super Bowls to find out why, despite having one of the best offenses in the NFL, like every other AFC team for 12 years they couldn't win the SB.

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 05/14, 06:50 PM
"In the Superbowl, but thats NOT WHAT this about."

Uh, it's EXACTLY what this is about. And cherry picking team stats doesn't change that.

Why in 1990 do you only mention the top 2 offenses, in 1991 the top 4, in 1992 the top 10 and in 1993 the top 5? Hmmm.

Why in 1990 do you only mention the top 5 defenses, in 1991 the top 10, in 1992 the top 4, and in 1993 the top 10?

Seems kind of odd that you would jump all over the map from year to year until you get to a happy median to support your argument. That's a classic example of abusing stats, Goodell.

And not a one of those stats explains away the FACT that the NFC not only won the Super Bowl for 12 straight years, but did so convincingly almost every year. Utter and complete dominance in the only game that mattered year after year can't be covered up with hand picked stats.

Who cares if the Bills had a great offense when they were severely lacking on the defensive end of the ball? Offensive football was good enough to get them to the big game in the AFC, but wasn't going to beat the likes of the Redskins (who had an even better offense) or the Cowboys who had top 5 defenses to go with excellent offenses. They lacked balance.