Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

[Mitchy moo]

After watching all the SB stuff this afternoon I really had a revelation about all those years we went to the SB and lost. Our AFC conference itself was very weak and we had home field advantage thanks to abusing our division. We lost 4 SB's in a row, which will probably never happen again (parity) & simply because we might have just been the best of the worse in the NFL and padded our stats. I hate to say all this but after we bowed out, San diego stepped into the SB as a 19 point underdog and lost by 23.

We may have just been the best of a very bad conference but never the class of the league. Our best chance of winning was against the giants but from there on out, we never had a real chance. All sad but looking back at it, maybe all too true.

There was a 13 years NFL run as well.

[Stewie]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

dude, you figured this out like 15 years late.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

XXXI	1997	Green Bay Packers	New England Patriots	35-21	New Orleans, LA
XXX	1996	Dallas Cowboys	Pittsburgh Steelers	27-17	Tempe, AZ
XXIX	1995	San Francisco 49ers	San Diego Chargers	49-26	Miami, FL
XXVIII	1994	Dallas Cowboys	Buffalo Bills	30-13	Atlanta, GA
XXVII	1993	Dallas Cowboys	Buffalo Bills	52-17	Pasadena, CA
XXVI	1992	Washington Redskins	Buffalo Bills	37-24	Minneapolis, MN
XXV	1991	New York Giants	Buffalo Bills	20-19	Tampa, FL
XXIV	1990	San Francisco 49ers	Denver Broncos	55-10	New Orleans, LA
XXIII	1989	San Francisco 49ers	Cincinnati Bengals	20-16	Miami, FL
XXII	1988	Washington Redskins	Denver Broncos	42-10	San Diego, CA
XXI	1987	New York Giants	Denver Broncos	39-20	Pasadena, CA
XX	1986	Chicago Bears	New England Patriots	46-10	New Orleans, LA
XIX	1985	San Francisco 49ers	Miami Dolphins	38-16	Stanford, CA

490 points scored by the NFC and 219 points for AFC= So the NFC average a 38-17 win margin or ~3 TD's every superbowl, ouch.

[raphael120]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

ug...this is like bringing up being abused as a child or somethin..can we just forget about it???

[Ingtar33]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

unless I've completely forgotten, but weren't the Bills always 4-0 or so vs the NFC each of those years... and didn't the AFC win the season series vs the NFC each of those years?

I think that 13 year stretch of dominance can't be placed on such a simple explanation of Conference Dominence.

1) you had a full fledged dynasty in the NFC during that stretch in the 49ers (4 superbowl wins).
2) you had perhaps the strongest division in football, in the NFC east over a chunk of that period of time (7 superbowl wins including the cowboys).
3) you had a 2nd full fledged Dynasty popping up in the NFC, with the Dallas Cowboys (3 superbowl wins).

Now Full Dynasties are a coin flip for the most part. They land in the NFL 1 to 2 times a decade or so it seems, we're looking at a 13 year stretch of time, it was pure chance that 2 would land back to back in the same conference.

Some of those superbowls were fluky (superbowl 23, 25 & 30), some were well deserved blowouts (none of the Broncos teams were close to the best team in the AFC, they just had the best player in the NFL on them). Some of those AFC teams that were slaughtered in the superbowl, fluked into the superbowl besting superior competition in the playoffs thanks to great luck, injuries, choke jobs and weather.

In essence the AFC rarely sent it's best team over those 13 years, due to better competition in the conference, leading to injuries and chance playing a larger role... while the NFC, a weaker conference for the most part of the last 25 years, sent it's best team every single year in large part due to the lack of serious competition, limiting the chance something fluky will knock them out, and lowering the chance of catastrophic injury, or frayed nerves..

In the case of the Bills, I'd say only the first two Superbowls were we the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

The Bills spanked the Giants in the Meadowlands (or were on the path to spanking the Giants, before Kelly went down) during our first run. That Bills team was the best team in the league, and their loss to the Giants was a perfect storm of fluky events. Had that game been played 10 times the Bills probably would have won 9 of them.

The 2nd Bills team was easily the best AFC team that year, however, we did not have a strong defense, and were running up against perhaps the best Superbowl team outside of the 15-1 Bears during that 13 win NFC stretch. That Redskin team was 1st in Offense and 1st in Defense. Had our 2nd superbowl team played 1/2 of the NFC champs over that 13 year stretch I'm willing to bet we would have blown them out of the building. Heck, we probably would have beat all of them except for the Bears.. and Redskins.

The 3rd superbowl team was the weakest AFC champ outside of 1989 Broncos or 1995 Chargers. They were blown out for a reason.

The 4th team was a good football team, not a great one. Sometimes those teams win the superbowl (1986 & 1990 Giants, 1987 Redskins). Mostly they get blown out.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

unless I've completely forgotten, but weren't the Bills always 4-0 or so vs the NFC each of those years... and didn't the AFC win the season series vs the NFC each of those years?

I think that 13 year stretch of dominance can't be placed on such a simple explanation of Conference Dominence.

1) you had a full fledged dynasty in the NFC during that stretch in the 49ers (4 superbowl wins).
2) you had perhaps the strongest division in football, in the NFC east over a chunk of that period of time (7 superbowl wins including the cowboys).
3) you had a 2nd full fledged Dynasty popping up in the NFC, with the Dallas Cowboys (3 superbowl wins).

Now Full Dynasties are a coin flip for the most part. They land in the NFL 1 to 2 times a decade or so it seems, we're looking at a 13 year stretch of time, it was pure chance that 2 would land back to back in the same conference.

Some of those superbowls were fluky (superbowl 23, 25 & 30), some were well deserved blowouts (none of the Broncos teams were close to the best team in the AFC, they just had the best player in the NFL on them). Some of those AFC teams that were slaughtered in the superbowl, fluked into the superbowl besting superior competition in the playoffs thanks to great luck, injuries, choke jobs and weather.

In essence the AFC rarely sent it's best team over those 13 years, due to better competition in the conference, leading to injuries and chance playing a larger role... while the NFC, a weaker conference for the most part of the last 25 years, sent it's best team every single year in large part due to the lack of serious competition, limiting the chance something fluky will knock them out, and lowering the chance of catastrophic injury, or frayed nerves..

In the case of the Bills, I'd say only the first two Superbowls were we the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

The Bills spanked the Giants in the Meadowlands (or were on the path to spanking the Giants, before Kelly went down) during our first run. That Bills team was the best team in the league, and their loss to the Giants was a perfect storm of fluky events. Had that game been played 10 times the Bills probably would have won 9 of them.

The 2nd Bills team was easily the best AFC team that year, however, we did not have a strong defense, and were running up against perhaps the best Superbowl team outside of the 15-1 Bears during that 13 win NFC stretch. That Redskin team was 1st in Offense and 1st in Defense. Had our 2nd superbowl team played 1/2 of the NFC champs over that 13 year stretch I'm willing to bet we would have blown them out of the building. Heck, we probably would have beat all of them except for the Bears.. and Redskins.

The 3rd superbowl team was the weakest AFC champ outside of 1989 Broncos or 1995 Chargers. They were blown out for a reason.

The 4th team was a good football team, not a great one. Sometimes those teams win the superbowl (1986 & 1990 Giants, 1987 Redskins). Mostly they get blown out.

Wow, this maybe the post of the year for accuracy. You nailed it dead on here.

[Goobylal]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

Yeah, the Bills had a very high winning percentage against the NFL during their SB years. So it wasn't simply just a matter of beating-up on a weak conference, although it partly was.

[G. Host]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

I think the NFC teams were weaker duing that period (Check AFC-NFC stats) but that by the time a team got to the Superbowl they were beat up and an opponent had game film on how to exploit whatever weaknesses existed in AFC team.

[HHURRICANE]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

This is a stupid post and shows how young Skooby is. The Bills beat the Giants earlier in the year and if Norwood makes the kick, even though we got outcoached, we win the game. The Redskins are now considered one of the best Superbowl team ever and nobody was beating them that year. Dallas caught lightening in a bottle, much like we did in 88-90. Realistically we should have been 1-3 and not 0-4 but that's the way it went. Let's not over analyze it.

Let's hope the Sabres win the Cup this year. I think this is the first time ever that a Buffalo team really is the favorite and the team to beat!! Even in 1990 we didn't have Superbowl players and coaches like the Giants and that was the difference.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

This is a stupid post and shows how young Skooby is. The Bills beat the Giants earlier in the year and if Norwood makes the kick, even though we got outcoached, we win the game. The Redskins are now considered one of the best Superbowl team ever and nobody was beating them that year. Dallas caught lightening in a bottle, much like we did in 88-90. Realistically we should have been 1-3 and not 0-4 but that's the way it went. Let's not over analyze it.

Let's hope the Sabres win the Cup this year. I think this is the first time ever that a Buffalo team really is the favorite and the team to beat!! Even in 1990 we didn't have Superbowl players and coaches like the Giants and that was the difference.

HH, you are rehashing just what I said and saying my post is stupid makes yours even stupider.

[Typ0]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad con

1) you had a full fledged dynasty in the NFC during that stretch in the 49ers (4 superbowl wins).
2) you had perhaps the strongest division in football, in the NFC east over a chunk of that period of time (7 superbowl wins including the cowboys).
3) you had a 2nd full fledged Dynasty popping up in the NFC, with the Dallas Cowboys (3 superbowl wins).

NFC East was so damn competitive in those years it made them dominant in the long run because they had to fight so hard all year long.

As far as the Dynasties go...I'd like to say they went the wayside with FA but NE has already won three in this decade and still with four years to go. I guess it really comes down to the whole team/organization clicking and then you have a dynasty. Sure wish that would happen here.

[Turf]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

unless I've completely forgotten, but weren't the Bills always 4-0 or so vs the NFC each of those years... and didn't the AFC win the season series vs the NFC each of those years?

I think that 13 year stretch of dominance can't be placed on such a simple explanation of Conference Dominence.

1) you had a full fledged dynasty in the NFC during that stretch in the 49ers (4 superbowl wins).
2) you had perhaps the strongest division in football, in the NFC east over a chunk of that period of time (7 superbowl wins including the cowboys).
3) you had a 2nd full fledged Dynasty popping up in the NFC, with the Dallas Cowboys (3 superbowl wins).

Now Full Dynasties are a coin flip for the most part. They land in the NFL 1 to 2 times a decade or so it seems, we're looking at a 13 year stretch of time, it was pure chance that 2 would land back to back in the same conference.

Some of those superbowls were fluky (superbowl 23, 25 & 30), some were well deserved blowouts (none of the Broncos teams were close to the best team in the AFC, they just had the best player in the NFL on them). Some of those AFC teams that were slaughtered in the superbowl, fluked into the superbowl besting superior competition in the playoffs thanks to great luck, injuries, choke jobs and weather.

In essence the AFC rarely sent it's best team over those 13 years, due to better competition in the conference, leading to injuries and chance playing a larger role... while the NFC, a weaker conference for the most part of the last 25 years, sent it's best team every single year in large part due to the lack of serious competition, limiting the chance something fluky will knock them out, and lowering the chance of catastrophic injury, or frayed nerves..

In the case of the Bills, I'd say only the first two Superbowls were we the unquestioned best team in the AFC.

The Bills spanked the Giants in the Meadowlands (or were on the path to spanking the Giants, before Kelly went down) during our first run. That Bills team was the best team in the league, and their loss to the Giants was a perfect storm of fluky events. Had that game been played 10 times the Bills probably would have won 9 of them.

The 2nd Bills team was easily the best AFC team that year, however, we did not have a strong defense, and were running up against perhaps the best Superbowl team outside of the 15-1 Bears during that 13 win NFC stretch. That Redskin team was 1st in Offense and 1st in Defense. Had our 2nd superbowl team played 1/2 of the NFC champs over that 13 year stretch I'm willing to bet we would have blown them out of the building. Heck, we probably would have beat all of them except for the Bears.. and Redskins.

The 3rd superbowl team was the weakest AFC champ outside of 1989 Broncos or 1995 Chargers. They were blown out for a reason.

The 4th team was a good football team, not a great one. Sometimes those teams win the superbowl (1986 & 1990 Giants, 1987 Redskins). Mostly they get blown out.

You beat me to it Skoob. Post of the year.

[Mitchy moo]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

You beat me to it Skoob. Post of the year.

I mean my god you don't see a post this good maybe once in your whole lifetime. It broke down pretty much everything and really was dead on accurate, wow!

[Bling]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

I can't figure who's posted the funniest thing: Skooby, HHURRICANE or Ingtar.

[feelthepain]

Re: Maybe the Bills best years we're just really just average years against a bad conf.

After watching all the SB stuff this afternoon I really had a revelation about all those years we went to the SB and lost. Our AFC conference itself was very weak and we had home field advantage thanks to abusing our division. We lost 4 SB's in a row, which will probably never happen again (parity) & simply because we might have just been the best of the worse in the NFL and padded our stats. I hate to say all this but after we bowed out, San diego stepped into the SB as a 19 point underdog and lost by 23.

We may have just been the best of a very bad conference but never the class of the league. Our best chance of winning was against the giants but from there on out, we never had a real chance. All sad but looking back at it, maybe all too true.

There was a 13 years NFL run as well.

....ya think?