1984 49ers = Overrated

[7DnBrnc53]

What precedent was Mortenson citing?

At the time, Mortenson claimed that Kelly and Thomas didn't get along that good, and that Kelly wasn't the best student of the game (and that he wasn't prepared enough for the SB's as he could have been or something).

[CSKreager]

I am not upset, because it's just a game, but I will put it to you this way:

Who did the 97 Broncos beat in the SB, and who did those NFC teams (from 84-96 beat) in the Super Bowl?

Well, the Broncos beat the best defense in the NFL and the three-time MVP in Brett Favre. Their offensive line neutralized a behemoth in Gilbert Brown, and Tony Jones did a great job against Reggie White (and, they did a great job on Leroy Butler as well).

Who did these NFC teams beat in the SB? Usually nobody special. There were only two times in that 13-year span that the AFC team was favored: Super Bowl XXII (Den-Was) and SB XXV (Buf-NYG).

Miami and Denver were one-man bands. And, when the 49ers played the Broncos, John Elway was sick as a dog with a bad cough, and Wade Phillips was running the wrong defensive scheme (a static 3-4 with the safeties wide).

As for the Bills, they should have won the first one, but those teams weren't as great as people think. They got there the last three years (1991-93) because the AFC was so inept. Chris Mortensen said in The Sporting News after the first Dallas loss that the Bills should have traded either Jim Kelly or Thurman Thomas. I would have traded Thermal, and he wouldn't have been the only guy I got rid of.

Then, after the 49ers defeated one of the worst teams to make the SB in the 94 Chargers, the Cowboys may have won the next year because Neil O'Donnell threw the game (it looked like the fix was in on those two INT's).

And, in 96, the Packers beat the third-best team in the AFC.

Overall, that NFC run wasn't as impressive as it seemed at the time.

Dallas' 2 SB teams weren't THAT great either. Emmitt was propped by the O-Line, Aikman was the most overrated QB in the history of sports, Irvin had average stats for a so-called playmaker, and their defense was OK at best.

They only one because they feasted on an overrated NFCE (Aging Giants, aging Redskins, fraudulent Eagles, terrible Cardinals)

Toughest division in sports..... beating up on Phoenix basically inflated their win records.

Dallas was a finesse team with an overrated HC that got by on pure talent and absolute luck.

Jimmy Johnson was a TERRIBLE sideline coach who basically only became a ;legend' because of the stupidity of Mike Lynn. Period.

Lol are you sure you and Bronco fan aren't the same person posting on multiple different accounts? Maybe you should also start saying how a quarterback being sick as an excuse as to why his team lost 55-10 in a Super Bowl.

The NFC East of that era was probably the most dominant division since the league went to the divisional set up. From '86 to '95 that division won 7 Super Bowls by three separate teams. The majority of those seasons they got multiple teams in the playoffs and also saw several years wear three of the five teams saw double digit win totals. Maybe the only other division you may try to compare to it was the AFC Central of the '70's. Even then though no other team in the Central got to the Super Bowl. It was just the Steelers, Raiders, and Dolphins (from three entirely separate divisions) throughout the entire decade. It was the Raiders and not anyone else from the Central that took over once the Steelers fell off a bit.

When you have that many teams within your own division winning the Super Bowl it isn't any surprise why that division became so good as they had to compete against Super Bowl champions just to win their own division. And the Eagles weren't no slouch either as they went to the playoffs several times during that span as well

The Eagles were pretenders (ONE playoff win with all that talent) and the Cardinals were pathetic (they'd have been terrible in any conference).

Battle tested? Yeah right.

[7DnBrnc53]

What would trading Kelly or Thomas have accomplished?

Honestly, I wouldn't have traded Kelly. However, trading Thurman and some other players and shaking things up after three straight SB losses wouldn't have been a bad idea, especially with what we know now (that they never won one).

Apparently 7DnBrnc53 thinks it would have been a good idea since he doesn’t think any of the Bills players were ever good (in what world is Andre Lofton or Andre Reed overrated?)

Andre Reed was good, but he wasn't a great WR. And, Lofton was gone after their third loss (he was a HOFer that was past his prime in Buffalo, anyway).

The Eagles were pretenders (ONE playoff win with all that talent) and the Cardinals were pathetic (they'd have been terrible in any conference).

Battle tested? Yeah right.

Exactly.

[lastcat3]

When the Bills were already having trouble beating NFC teams in the postseason how would have trading away their hall of fame running back of helped.

I think you guys are just trying to argue for arguments sake. I guess in some people's eyes if you didn't play for the Broncos that makes you suspect.

[7DnBrnc53]

When the Bills were already having trouble beating NFC teams in the postseason how would have trading away their hall of fame running back of helped.

I think you guys are just trying to argue for arguments sake. I guess in some people's eyes if you didn't play for the Broncos that makes you suspect.

At the time, Mortensen said something about there being tension between Kelly and Thomas. Also, they didn't win the SB with him, and honestly, a roster shakeup of some sort after three straight SB losses wouldn't have been a bad idea (especially if you have stability at QB with Kelly).

[Brian wolf]

Losing Thomas to trade wouldn't have helped the Bills or Jim Kelly. Davis could run but wasn't the valuable receiver that Thomas was. The passing attack would have suffered without Thomas, who had his best ever running game against KC to put Buffalo in its 4th straight SB. Had Thomas been traded, the Chiefs with Montana would have lost to Dallas in the SB.

I felt Reed was one of the best receivers going over the middle in the history of the NFL, who had numerous clutch games, including postseason that deservedly put him into the HOF. This team never could win until he arrived and had Norwood hit that difficult FG against the Giants, less people would have questioned his election.

[CSKreager]

When the NFC won 13 SB’s in a row, the conference was NOT truly deep and stacked

Outside of the 85 Bears and 96 Packers- the 49ers and NFC East did most of the damage.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that Minnesota/New Orleans of that era would have been a touchdown favorite in the SB.

[SeahawkFever]

When the NFC won 13 SB’s in a row, the conference was NOT truly deep and stacked

Outside of the 85 Bears and 96 Packers- the 49ers and NFC East did most of the damage.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that Minnesota/New Orleans of that era would have been a touchdown favorite in the SB.

There's one set of data I want to share briefly now that we are talking about the NFC's streak of consecutive Super Bowl titles.

The StatMuse search I did a number of posts ago for the records of the NFC vs the AFC since the merger found the following records for the NFC vs the AFC in the years of the Super Bowl victory streak:

1984: 26-26 (.500)
1985: 25-27 (.481)
1986: 26-26 (.500)
1987: 22-23-1 (.489)
1988: 22-30 (.423)
1989: 28-24 (.538)
1990: 26-26 (.500)
1991: 33-19 (.635)
1992: 30-22 (.577)
1993: 25-27 (.481)
1994: 27-25 (.519)
1995: 33-27 (.550)
1996: 28-32 (.467)

I guess it could be the way it turned out, but in that 13 year span, there are only four seasons where the NFC had a record of more than two games over .500 on the season vs its corresponding AFC (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995).

Not that the teams who made the Super Bowl didn't play well vs the AFC, but some of the other teams in the conference that didn't go as far may not have played as well vs the AFC in the regular season.

[Bryan]

There's one set of data I want to share briefly now that we are talking about the NFC's streak of consecutive Super Bowl titles.

The StatMuse search I did a number of posts ago for the records of the NFC vs the AFC since the merger found the following records for the NFC vs the AFC in the years of the Super Bowl victory streak:

1984: 26-26 (.500)
1985: 25-27 (.481)
1986: 26-26 (.500)
1987: 22-23-1 (.489)
1988: 22-30 (.423)
1989: 28-24 (.538)
1990: 26-26 (.500)
1991: 33-19 (.635)
1992: 30-22 (.577)
1993: 25-27 (.481)
1994: 27-25 (.519)
1995: 33-27 (.550)
1996: 28-32 (.467)

I guess it could be the way it turned out, but in that 13 year span, there are only four seasons where the NFC had a record of more than two games over .500 on the season vs its corresponding AFC (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995).

Not that the teams who made the Super Bowl didn't play well vs the AFC, but some of the other teams in the conference that didn't go as far may not have played as well vs the AFC in the regular season.

This is just a theory, but I think the issue was that both the Broncos and the Bills were 'finesse' teams. If you only had one week to prepare for them in the regular season, then they would be difficult to figure out. If you had more film on them and more time to prepare, then you would be able to matchup with them better.

Denver and Buffalo could beat teams like Washington and San Fran in the regular season, but then in the Super Bowl they'd just get stomped. I think it was just a case of not being able to matchup 1:1 with the physically stronger NFC teams. I recently watched the Bills-Skins Super Bowl on NFL Network, and it was noticeable just how much bigger the Skins were than the Bills. They'd bring in Gerald Riggs and he would fall forward for 10 yards.

[CSKreager]

There's one set of data I want to share briefly now that we are talking about the NFC's streak of consecutive Super Bowl titles.

The StatMuse search I did a number of posts ago for the records of the NFC vs the AFC since the merger found the following records for the NFC vs the AFC in the years of the Super Bowl victory streak:

1984: 26-26 (.500)
1985: 25-27 (.481)
1986: 26-26 (.500)
1987: 22-23-1 (.489)
1988: 22-30 (.423)
1989: 28-24 (.538)
1990: 26-26 (.500)
1991: 33-19 (.635)
1992: 30-22 (.577)
1993: 25-27 (.481)
1994: 27-25 (.519)
1995: 33-27 (.550)
1996: 28-32 (.467)

I guess it could be the way it turned out, but in that 13 year span, there are only four seasons where the NFC had a record of more than two games over .500 on the season vs its corresponding AFC (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995).

Not that the teams who made the Super Bowl didn't play well vs the AFC, but some of the other teams in the conference that didn't go as far may not have played as well vs the AFC in the regular season.

This is just a theory, but I think the issue was that both the Broncos and the Bills were 'finesse' teams. If you only had one week to prepare for them in the regular season, then they would be difficult to figure out. If you had more film on them and more time to prepare, then you would be able to matchup with them better.

Denver and Buffalo could beat teams like Washington and San Fran in the regular season, but then in the Super Bowl they'd just get stomped. I think it was just a case of not being able to matchup 1:1 with the physically stronger NFC teams. I recently watched the Bills-Skins Super Bowl on NFL Network, and it was noticeable just how much bigger the Skins were than the Bills. They'd bring in Gerald Riggs and he would fall forward for 10 yards.

Washington was a big slow plodding team. 3 yards and a cloud of dust. No team speed yet they were big enough to mask that definciency

NFC teams were basically slow as molasses when physicality mattered above all else