Interesting WR stats

[Turf]

This is a post from the ESPN message board.

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/nfl/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=nfl_buf&id=120035

These are receiver stats from the Super Bowl years compared to last. I just found it very interesting.

1990
reed 71
lofton 35
thurman 49
beebe 11
mckeller 35

1991
reed 81
lofton 57
thurman 62
mckeller 44
beebe 32

1992
reed 65
thurman 58
lofton 51
beebe 33

last year
moulds 100
price 94
henry 43
center 43
reed 37
riemersma 32

[Tatonka]

wow.. excellent post.. very interesting numbers..

and think how potent that offense was with such (in retrospect they seem) small numbers in receptions.

i believe that josh can do what andre did in those offenses.

[WG]

Right! And we had a 2,000 yard plus running game w/ a killer D and a QB that was more versatile than the one we have now.

You can do the math...

Rushing & D in short!

Even when the Rams won, they did it on Faulk's rushing and D. When they had to rely on their passing game, or did, then they got whupped, probably by a team that shouldn't have beaten them.

Very few teams, if any, have won the big one on the merits of their passing game. It's nice, it's fun to watch, it's exciting, but it doesn't "pay the bills."

This season w/ Gilbride firmly ensconced at both QBC and O.C. it'll be interesting to see if he lapses back into a pass first approach often enough for us to throw the season or cost us winning games in the 3rd Q.

[WG]

BTW, in most of those seasons, Our top 2 WRs had only about as much as Moulds alone last year. Only once was slightly more than that.

[The Natrix]

Killer D? I would say the offense was pretty much the reason for the SB years. If we had what constitutes a "Killer D" then four SB titles would be in B-lo.

Yeah, and Jimbo was Vick like in "versatility."

If Henry isn't as good as TT, he is damn close.

But nevertheless, I do agree with you that these stats are pretty much meaningless.

[WG]

Every one of our opponents, except for arguably the Giants, had better Ds than we did. Hence the losses. Even if the Giants didn't have a better one, they played better on that day.

[The Natrix]

I think the 98-99 defenses were better than the SB years

[WG]

OK, we'll I'll have to look like the fool then.

'98: ranked 15th in scoring D, allowed 333 points
'99: ranked 2nd, 229 points

'90: ranked 6th, 263
'91: ranked 19th, 318 points
'92: ranked 14th, 283 points
'93: ranked 5th, 242 points

As well, '99 was overated for the following reason, we played hardly any of the top offensive teams and when we did we gave up points in droves. The D played up too b/c Flutie was our QB where 16 points was ranted about by the media.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect you to believe me, but go check it out for yourself. On paper the D was impressive, but couldn't be counted on to win games like top Ds other than against mediocre or worse competition.

The Flutie years, what sad years those were! A failed experiment and a total waste of time. Phillips was a dunderhead as HC too.

[WG]

We also had much better running games in '90 & '93 and those were the two SBs that we came the closest to winning.

Also, in those years, the teams that beat us were ranked #1 and #2 in defense. So as is the case, the teams w/ the best D/Running game combo won.

[Kicker22705]

"Anyway, I wouldn't expect you to believe me, but go check it out for yourself. On paper the D was impressive, but couldn't be counted on to win games like top Ds other than against mediocre or worse competition. "

If anything we weren't good on paper, we were damn good on the field. We had zero players that made the pro-bowl that year on defense despite ranking #1. We had a top 3 defense against the run and a top 10 defense against the pass. And we did it playing playing in a division that had 3 playoff teams in the division include ourselves and zero teams that had a losing record.