PDA

View Full Version : Eagles 2000-2008 = Bills of the early 90s


goldengopher1976
01-18-2009, 08:46 PM
I was thinking about this the other day, and while I know there are ways in which the comparison breaks down (Eagles are 1-4 in the NFC championship while the Bills won the AFC and lost in the SB), but I thought in some ways the comparison was uncanny.

Especially:

McNabb = Kelly (McNabb better runner, Kelly better passer, but both will be remembered as good but not great QBs)

Westbrook = Thurman Thomas (quick RB who relies on receptions as much as running to contribute)

Anyway, just a musing while watching...

ColoradoDarin
01-18-2009, 08:48 PM
They're a poor man's Bills.

Inkana7
01-18-2009, 08:55 PM
Those Bills had hall of famers all over. It's a shame they never won.

Bob's your Information Minister
01-18-2009, 08:57 PM
You give McNabb a receiver like Andre Reed and we're not even having this discussion.

Hallside
01-18-2009, 09:00 PM
You give McNabb a receiver like Andre Reed and we're not even having this discussion.

Really? You mean like TO?

Bob's your Information Minister
01-18-2009, 09:01 PM
Really? You mean like TO?

McNabb played with TO for two lousy years.

goldengopher1976
01-18-2009, 09:09 PM
Yeah, like I said, there are plenty of ways the comparison doesn't work (Andre Reed is one I didn't bother mentioning), but unless the Eagles win a SB, they will be remembered in exactly the same way.

Popps
01-18-2009, 10:42 PM
The Eagles wish they were that Bills team.

That Bills team EASILY wipes the ****ing floor with any team playing out there these days. That was an immensely talented football team. It's just frightening to go back and look at that roster and pick out the talent. Just amazing.

Their crime was to exist during an era where a team existed that may have been as dominant as any in history... the Dallas Cowboys. As much as I hated that team with the core of my soul, I've never seen anything like it... and I watched the Cowboys/Steelers and 49ers of the 70s, 80s and 90s play. I never saw any teams play (personally) before the 70s, of course... but if there was a team as dominant and loaded with talent as those Cowboys were, I'd be curious to see the two meet in one of those games for the ages.

I hated that ****ing team.

Yea... the Bills may have gotten the rawest deal of any great team in NFL history.

epicSocialism4tw
01-18-2009, 10:49 PM
Philly is nowhere near the class of that Bills team.

4 straight superbowls is an awesome feat no matter which way you slice it.

That takes some determination.

NUB
01-18-2009, 10:56 PM
I think McNabb is a great quarterback. He has had absolute rubbish for receivers pretty much his entire year and the one season he gets a great receiver -- T.O. -- he goes to the Superbowl.

As for the comparison... 5 NFC championships is a lot, but like someone else said that's nothing compared to four straight SB appearances.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Yeah, like I said, there are plenty of ways the comparison doesn't work (Andre Reed is one I didn't bother mentioning), but unless the Eagles win a SB, they will be remembered in exactly the same way.

No they wont. Bills made, what was it, 4 straight super bowls? Eagles made one? I didnt even realize the eagles were in 5 of the last 8 nfc championships until the stat was brought to my attention. No comparison

wolf754life
01-18-2009, 11:53 PM
more like kosars and schottenheimers browns, but at least the eaglets made a super bowl.

Crushaholic
01-19-2009, 12:04 AM
That's a sore subject with me. For a while, the Broncos were spoken of in the same sentence as the Bills...a good team who could just never get over the hump. Fortunately, we finally erased that stigma as the 90s wore down...

BroncoMan4ever
01-19-2009, 12:21 AM
those Bills deserve an honorary SB ring. 4 straight SB losses will never happen again. most teams can't stay competitive year to year let alone go to the super bowl 4 straight years, that is an unbelievable accomplishment that will never be repeated.

Jens1893
01-19-2009, 02:06 AM
more like the steelers under cowher before they finally got over the hump.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
01-19-2009, 02:19 AM
I was thinking about this the other day, and while I know there are ways in which the comparison breaks down (Eagles are 1-4 in the NFC championship while the Bills won the AFC and lost in the SB), but I thought in some ways the comparison was uncanny.

Especially:

McNabb = Kelly (McNabb better runner, Kelly better passer, but both will be remembered as good but not great QBs)

Westbrook = Thurman Thomas (quick RB who relies on receptions as much as running to contribute)

Anyway, just a musing while watching...

Thats an insult to the 90's bills and bills fans. At least they make it to the big dance.

UberBroncoMan
01-19-2009, 02:34 AM
I was thinking about this comparison as well. I feel bad for Dawkins though, more than anyone else on that team.

chadta
01-19-2009, 05:31 AM
you guys obviously didnt have to deal with any bills fans on a day to day basis, you think the steeler fans are obnoxious, Personally i woulda liked them to make it 5 times in a row and lost all of them. But the next 10 years of suckage has thined out the fan base a little bit, its more bareable now.

Hogan11
01-19-2009, 08:17 AM
Those Bills had hall of famers all over. It's a shame they never won.

It's not a stretch to say that those Bills teams were the greatest teams to never win a Super Bowl. The Eagles simply don't come close to the 90's Bills and what they achieved.

socalorado
01-19-2009, 08:20 AM
The Eagles wish they were that Bills team.

That Bills team EASILY wipes the ****ing floor with any team playing out there these days. That was an immensely talented football team. It's just frightening to go back and look at that roster and pick out the talent. Just amazing.

Their crime was to exist during an era where a team existed that may have been as dominant as any in history... the Dallas Cowboys. As much as I hated that team with the core of my soul, I've never seen anything like it... and I watched the Cowboys/Steelers and 49ers of the 70s, 80s and 90s play. I never saw any teams play (personally) before the 70s, of course... but if there was a team as dominant and loaded with talent as those Cowboys were, I'd be curious to see the two meet in one of those games for the ages.

I hated that ****ing team.

Yea... the Bills may have gotten the rawest deal of any great team in NFL history.

QFT. Those Bills teams were damn good in all three phases.
Kelly was great at running the "no huddle" too.
Twice the clutch QB McNabb will ever be.

goldengopher1976
01-19-2009, 09:31 AM
No they wont. Bills made, what was it, 4 straight super bowls? Eagles made one? I didnt even realize the eagles were in 5 of the last 8 nfc championships until the stat was brought to my attention. No comparison

Hard to tell I guess. Probably depends on how educated a fan we're talking about. I'm still inclined to think that most football fans would be fine to lump this Eagles team (assuming they don't win a SB) in with the 90's Bills and the 70's Vikings and whatever other good/great teams never won a SB.

But that was really only part of my point (not that I was making a profound one). I was rather more enamored with the fact that both teams had good-if-not-great QBs and RBs that were known as much for receiving as running. That just seemed worthy of comparison.

Beyond that, I realize that probably even Don Beebe would be a star compared to Philly's receivers, and that Daryl Talley is better than all their LBs (not to mention Bruce Smith and all the other greats on that team).

So...yeah. Bills probably win over this Eagles team 8 or 9 out of 10.

An interesting question would be "how many current NFL teams could line up against that Bills team?"

ColoradoDarin
01-19-2009, 10:02 AM
QFT. Those Bills teams were damn good in all three phases.
Kelly was great at running the "no huddle" too.
Twice the clutch QB McNabb will ever be.

McNabb can't even run the 2 minute offense (I'm serious, has he ever run a 2 minute offense? the clearest example I can think of is the Superbowl when they were down and McNabb was out of breath), K-Gun could run it all day long.

Lidderer
01-19-2009, 10:07 AM
These teams are almost as dissimilar as possible if you look beyond simple records.

This would be like saying 2006-2008 broncos are like the new orleans saints of the mid-90s, always hovering around .500, not really doing much of note in anything meaningful, and perpetually choking away playoff chances.

Actually...

hades
01-19-2009, 11:53 AM
McNabb didn't even know you could go to the Superbowl 4 times in a row.

El Minion
01-19-2009, 12:54 PM
Interesting people taking a crap on Mcnabb, very similar to the flack Elway/Marino got about not winning when it counted (and no I'm not making the Mcnabb equivalent to Elway/Marino) and the same could be said of Kelly. Give him a Reed/Loften WR combo or an elite TE like Sharpe to go with Westbrook and then we'll see what he can really do, Owens was just a glimpse. Kelly, though great, never carried teams like Elway and Marino did and to a lesser extent Mcnabb as well.

I had better not hear anyone from Philadelphia blame McNabb for that game. I heard Anthony Gargano from WIP radio in Philadelphia last night and I wondered what game he was watching. Blaming McNabb for the result and for not leading the team to a score at the end is wrong. Curtis slipped, or else itís a perfect throw. Find another reason and another person to blame.

Natedog24
01-19-2009, 01:10 PM
That Bills squad would have wiped the floor with any of teams Philly has had the last 8 seasons. HUGE difference between getting to the Superbowl 4 years in a row and what Philly has done.

TonyR
01-19-2009, 01:51 PM
One HUGE factor that people are completely overlooking is how large the disparity was between the NFC and the AFC in the years Buffalo went to those 4 straight Super Bowls. The NFC won 13 consecutive Super Bowls from the 1984 season through the 1996 season. The AFC has been the better conference since then but not to nearly the extent the NFC was the better conference in those years. So yes, Buffalo was a very good team in that time period, but they were the best team in a relatively weak conference.

Ninjatime
01-19-2009, 01:59 PM
McNabb didn't even know you could go to the Superbowl 4 times in a row.

Haha

goldengopher1976
01-19-2009, 04:24 PM
One HUGE factor that people are completely overlooking is how large the disparity was between the NFC and the AFC in the years Buffalo went to those 4 straight Super Bowls. The NFC won 13 consecutive Super Bowls from the 1984 season through the 1996 season. The AFC has been the better conference since then but not to nearly the extent the NFC was the better conference in those years. So yes, Buffalo was a very good team in that time period, but they were the best team in a relatively weak conference.

That's a good point.

I also wonder at the differences in scheme and personnel. After all, we're more than willing to admit that even a team of the best players from the 50's wouldn't even be able to compete with today's NFL team (except maybe the Lions). At what point will we turn another corner and say that even a great team like the 90's Bills wouldn't be able to keep up a modern NFL team? Perhaps we're farther from that than I've made it in my mind, but it's another factor to consider.

Not that I really had that kind of thing in mind when I started the thread...

rastaman
01-19-2009, 04:33 PM
McNabb has done all he can do with the Eagles. The Eagles never planned to surround Donovan with talent at the skill positions. Aikman could not have taken the teams McNab has QB'd to any SB's either, let alone 5 AFC Titles. Ya gotta have some weapons to get the SB and win.

I'd like to see McNabb go to the Vikings. At least he would be able to play with an all pro RB.

Rocky Mountain Stampede
01-19-2009, 09:12 PM
McNabb = Kelly (McNabb better runner, Kelly better passer, but both will be remembered as good but not great QBs)

How is Jim Kelly not a great QB? First ballot Hall of Famers are merely good?

goldengopher1976
01-19-2009, 09:26 PM
How is Jim Kelly not a great QB? First ballot Hall of Famers are merely good?

I suppose part of my thinking here is that, yes, merely good QBs do get into the HOF, and with Kelly leading his team to 4 SBs, he gets in first ballot. Like I said in another post, we could debate about timing, scheme, etc. in relationship to a QBs quality, but the fact is, I don't think Jim Kelly is appropriately listed in the category of "great" QBs.

Was Steve Young a great QB? Would you take Young over Kelly? What about Warren Moon? I think we could make a long list of good (not great) QBs who are in the HOF. Perhaps it would be more fair to use the term "very good QBs", but either way, I think we have to distinguish the "very good" from the "great", and I would put Kelly in the former category.

TomServo
01-19-2009, 09:30 PM
the eagles dont compare at all. not to the bills. not to the vikings. or not the 80's broncos. those teams all went to multiple superbowls.
i would compare the eagles to the 80's browns minus one superbowl appearance.

Rashid242
01-20-2009, 05:11 AM
One HUGE factor that people are completely overlooking is how large the disparity was between the NFC and the AFC in the years Buffalo went to those 4 straight Super Bowls. The NFC won 13 consecutive Super Bowls from the 1984 season through the 1996 season. The AFC has been the better conference since then but not to nearly the extent the NFC was the better conference in those years. So yes, Buffalo was a very good team in that time period, but they were the best team in a relatively weak conference.

I forgot about that but it's stil an hell of an accomplishment.

TonyR
01-20-2009, 08:30 AM
I forgot about that but it's stil an hell of an accomplishment.

Agree, and they probably should have won the Super Bowl they lost against the Giants.

Lidderer
01-20-2009, 09:50 AM
Agree, and they probably should have won the Super Bowl they lost against the Giants.

Does it strike anyone else as being peculiar that people say "the bills should've won that giants super bowl" and yet also say "vinatieri is a great kicker for making that fg in the super bowl"?

Maybe more ridiculous than strange, actually.

TonyR
01-20-2009, 10:04 AM
Does it strike anyone else as being peculiar that people say "the bills should've won that giants super bowl" and yet also say "vinatieri is a great kicker for making that fg in the super bowl"?


You're right, the word "could" probably works better in this case than "should". A 47 yarder is no gimme.

But my overall point is that Buffalo was competitive in that game and had a chance to win as opposed to their next 3 Super Bowl appearances where they got blown out.

Rocky Mountain Stampede
01-20-2009, 10:13 AM
I suppose part of my thinking here is that, yes, merely good QBs do get into the HOF, and with Kelly leading his team to 4 SBs, he gets in first ballot. Like I said in another post, we could debate about timing, scheme, etc. in relationship to a QBs quality, but the fact is, I don't think Jim Kelly is appropriately listed in the category of "great" QBs.

Was Steve Young a great QB? Would you take Young over Kelly? What about Warren Moon? I think we could make a long list of good (not great) QBs who are in the HOF. Perhaps it would be more fair to use the term "very good QBs", but either way, I think we have to distinguish the "very good" from the "great", and I would put Kelly in the former category.

Kelly, Young and Moon are all great quarterbacks. They are in the Hall of Fame for a reason.

WolfpackGuy
01-20-2009, 11:40 AM
Damn, David Treadwell!
Goalpost hitting mf'er!

B-Love
01-20-2009, 12:30 PM
It's classic to watch all you guys just absolutely publicly fellate those Bills teams as being GREAT TEAMS, when what they did is only a little better than our 86-89 Broncos.

They did 4 in a row, and we did three out of four. Two of their four losses were to all time teams, and two of our losses were to all time teams as well.

They were blown out 3 times in the Super Bowl, and so were those Broncos teams.

Yet, to most here those Bills teams were "great" and our Broncos teams were "a one man show", "Reeves told John to win it in the 4th" and "Winder between the guards EVERY 1st and 2nd down".

To watch you put them up on a pedestal and and villify your own team is strange. Especially when what they accomplished from 90-93 was only a slight margin better than what we did from 86-89.

And whenever our "Reeves Sucks" "Winder Between the Guards" "Elway Go Win it in the 4th" "One Man Team" Broncos played the Bills back then, we either beat them or gave them a great game.

In 1989 we ****ed them up at their place on National TV on MNF. 21-0 at half, 28-14 final.

In 1990 we had a 21-9 lead, with Treadwell lined up for a chipshot FG to probably put the game out of reach. Unfortunately the blocked FG return for a TD started the quickest collapse in team history and we lost 29-28.

In 1991, we lost the AFC title game 10-7, and outplayed this dynasty, in their place again for the third straight year.

In 1992, with Tommy Maddox and Shawn Moore alternating snaps, and the Bills needing a win, we only lost 27-17. Once again, for the 4th straight year, the game was in Buffalo.

I don't know man. It is strange to watch some of the same posters fellate those Bills teams and minimize the accomplishments of their own favorite team, who basically accomplished almost the same thing.

TonyR
01-20-2009, 12:42 PM
They were blown out 3 times in the Super Bowl, and so were those Broncos teams.

Good points, B-Love. We also benefitted from the "era of AFC mediocrity" and then got humbled in the Bowl against far superior NFC teams. I particularly remember that 10-7 battle against the Bills, that was a frustrating loss.

bronco militia
01-20-2009, 12:47 PM
McNabb didn't even know you could go to the Superbowl 4 times in a row.

Hilarious!

Old Dude
01-20-2009, 01:23 PM
The Eagles wish they were that Bills team.

That Bills team EASILY wipes the ****ing floor with any team playing out there these days. That was an immensely talented football team. It's just frightening to go back and look at that roster and pick out the talent. Just amazing.

Their crime was to exist during an era where a team existed that may have been as dominant as any in history... the Dallas Cowboys. As much as I hated that team with the core of my soul, I've never seen anything like it... and I watched the Cowboys/Steelers and 49ers of the 70s, 80s and 90s play. I never saw any teams play (personally) before the 70s, of course... but if there was a team as dominant and loaded with talent as those Cowboys were, I'd be curious to see the two meet in one of those games for the ages.

I hated that ****ing team.

Yea... the Bills may have gotten the rawest deal of any great team in NFL history.

I tend to agree with almost all of that, though I think it could be argued that the Cowboys themselves had a tough draw against the steroid-enhanced Steelers during Bradshaw's hayday.

And, we do have to remember that Buffalo did not have a bad draw against the Giants. They probably should have won that game.

I don't think Phily is quite in the same historical league with those Buffalo teams. Free agency tends to reduce dynasties and subdynasties.

Rocky Mountain Stampede
01-20-2009, 01:29 PM
The 1970s Los Angeles Rams are a much better comparison to the 00s Eagles.

Rams lost in the NFC Championship four times ('74-'76, '78) and finished the decade with a loss in the Super Bowl to the Steelers.

Inkana7
01-20-2009, 05:14 PM
The 1970s Los Angeles Rams are a much better comparison to the 00s Eagles.

Rams lost in the NFC Championship four times ('74-'76, '78) and finished the decade with a loss in the Super Bowl to the Steelers.

Good research. Those Rams teams had good defenses.