7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 6:29 pm
CSKreager wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:56 pm
Halas Hall wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 4:57 pm
I kind of feel re the 1980's Denver Broncos that Dan Reeves went 85-50-1 during the 1980's in his first head coaching job and should be in the Hall of Fame, but as Bill Parcells said in his book with Jerry Izenberg "The Broncos (of that era) just cannot handle power".
But as you say 13-3 is 13-3.
The Giants were all power without any speed. In short, 3 yards and a cloud of dust. They were power and physicality but nothing else. Slowest teams to ever win SB’s, 0 emphasis on team speed, a one trick pony
The 01, 03-04 Pats were similar. Those teams didn't have a lot of speed, either (especially on defense). No surprise that they cheated.
Just like no team can be a champ with just finesse or just power, neither were Parcells' Giants or the early-'00s Pats. Both were not sandwiches with just peanut butter and no jelly. Mostly peanut butter, yes, but a little bit of jelly at least; enough to make them all champs.
G-men had to have more than "just" power to slaughter both Walsh and Gibbs by a combined 74-3 en route to SBXXI. The only thing that the 'Big Blue Wrecking Crew' may be historically "guilty" of in the '80s...is simply not being up to par with the '84/'89 Forty NIners and '85 Bears. No crime whatsoever. Yes, Parcells also struggled against Buddy's Birds and Robinson's Rams, but he did have himself a 6-0 steak vs Gibbs, and also was 2-1 in the post-season vs Walsh; 3-1 vs San Fran in the playoffs overall. So, yeah, I wouldn't say 100% power. Had to have at least little of something else in addition in order to achieve all that was already mentioned.
Now a team such as the 1980 Eagles may be a closer example to..."all" power, but they also had to have
some speed to do what they, indeed, did (but, yes, Al Davis was very confident going into SBXV just the same due to the Raiders' huge edge in team-speed; and Oakland, of course, had a bit of power too).
7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:42 pm
If they somehow get by Miami, I think they play the 49ers way tougher than the Dolphins did because Collier knew the right schemes to play against the WCO. Five years later, the 49ers were on a roll, and Wade didn't know the right scheme to play. He played the worst possible defensive scheme against the WCO (a static 3-4 with the safeties wide and deep. Walsh designed his offense specifically to attack that style of defense).
Collier's defense better suited, I agree. Not sure if Broncos beating San Fran in both '85 and even '88 are the greatest examples to give, but at least worthy mentions. The WCO was held to 16 and 13 points respectively in those defeats. But it was during the regular season. SF was merely "good" in '85 and at the time of their '88 meeting, they likely were less than that.
I'm sure Denver doesn't lose by 22 pts, nor give up 38, had they played San Fran in SBXIX. But IMO it's still not an exciting game. I guess they lose by 14 instead. 28-14? 24-10? Denver scoring a late garbage-TD to make it that final score? Same with '89 had Collier still been DC. No 55-10 or even close, but still not a close suspenseful game either. This IS the
1989 San Francisco Forty Niners who we're talking of, Montana/Rice at their apex, and even if Elway didn't have the flu, Dan Reeves simply was at his worst once taking a team to the Super Bowl.
7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 11:28 pm
Mark wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 6:54 pm
Maybe someone mentioned it and I didn't see it but didn't Elway get injured in the playoff game? I seem to recall him limping a lot in the 4th quarter.
Yes, he did get hurt. I remember him having tape around his waist and thigh (maybe) in the second half while having trouble with mobility.
I saw them at the time as a paper tiger. Not a 13-win team. They benefited from at least one fluky win (in the snow against Green Bay), and not one but three come-from-behind 16-13 wins over division rivals. Still, I had to give them credit for prevailing in what was an insanely competitive AFC West.
They were par for the course in the AFC in the 80's and early-90's (with some exceptions). They had an average team (some years below average) that was carried by a great QB. They were able to get out of the AFC three times, but couldn't beat the NFC power of the day.
Elway was the main reason for Denver's winning ways in the '80s. And Collier should get more credit than Reeves as well but Dan
was the captain of the ship, was from the School of Landry, and created the very culture that enabled them to have the winning run they had. Yes, he could have been less conservative and loosened the leash more on Elway. As I already said, the Super Bowl was his ultimate Achilles heel. He probably belongs in Canton if only due to his entire NFL career, especially leading his teams to four SBs as a HC. But many of you here all got me to agree to not place him up there with Grant and Levy.
#7 was banged up in that Steelers game. Full-mobility could have made a difference; maybe, maybe not. Gary Anderson missed 3 FGs as well. But then it can also be said that Karlis missed two. Either way, even if I wasn't a Steeler-fan and wished to this day that we would have seen an Elway/Marino showdown in the AFCCG, I'd still have to see the Steelers as a deserving participant in that year's "final four" despite their 9-7 record and other shortcomings.
Of course Miami did play Denver, at Mile High, the following year and actually won. The first Marino/Elway showdown, both only ever squaring off twice ever again; both times being...1998! Miami would finish 12-4 in '85, winning their division, and Denver would be one of two 11-5 teams ever to miss the playoffs. Not sure if that game can be seen as an indicator as to what would have happened had they played the year prior in the AFCCG, but definitely a worthy mention!