46 replies to this topic

[TheKickIsGood]

Let's discuss. 1990 has to be the clubhouse leader but I'm going to put on a 53 team tournament of every Bills team to find out for sure.

http://www.thekickisgood.com/?p=4883

The games start Sunday.

Who is your pick?

Thanks, Two Bills Drivers. This is clearly the best Bills message board out there.

[Bangarang]

Feel free to stop spamming your site everytime you want to have a discussion.

[Shoutbox]

The 1964 team was the best in franchise history, followed closely by the 1990 team.

[first_and_ten]

Marc Miller, on 08 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

The 1964 team was the best in franchise history, followed closely by the 1990 team.

I think it's difficult to compare those two eras. Would the 90 team beat the 64 team? Most likely yes, but if we look at how each team fares compared to the quality of their own time period, the 64 team might be better.  Anyways, I think the two finalists would be the 90 team versus the 91 team. Winner, 91

[Tony P]

Marc Miller, on 08 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

The 1964 team was the best in franchise history, followed closely by the 1990 team.

[yungmack]

Marc Miller, on 08 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

The 1964 team was the best in franchise history, followed closely by the 1990 team.

Without a doubt.

[nucci]

'64 team dominated the league at the time. Have to say it is No.1 on my list.

[FeartheLosing]

An AFL team vs the 90 NFL Buffalo Bills....hrmmm

The one that wins a SB will be the best.

[dwight in philly]

i am partial to the 80-81 team.. still believe they could have won it all.. bad luck, fergy injury.. loved that team.. and i have been around for them all.

[Buftex]

I am partial the 1980 team, because it was the first Bills team in my cognisent Bills life that ever seemed to have a legit chance to qualify for a Super Bowl...alas...

Just curious though (and I have no strong opinion either way) normally, the 1991 team is held in higher esteem than the 1990 team, from the Super Bowl era...why is that?  As I recall, the 1990 team was a little more consistant defensively, but the 1991 team was a bit more explosive offensively.

dwight in philly, on 08 February 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

i am partial to the 80-81 team.. still believe they could have won it all.. bad luck, fergy injury.. loved that team.. and i have been around for them all.

Hey, you were typing that as I was typing in my vote for the 1980 team!

Bangarang, on 08 February 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Feel free to stop spamming your site everytime you want to have a discussion.

Why is everyone so pricky lately?  It would be one thing if he was trying to sell something...but the link seems pretty harmless.

[dwight in philly]

Buftex, on 08 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

I am partial the 1980 team, because it was the first Bills team in my cognisent Bills life that ever seemed to have a legit chance to qualify for a Super Bowl...alas...

Just curious though (and I have no strong opinion either way) normally, the 1991 team is held in higher esteem than the 1990 team, from the Super Bowl era...why is that?  As I recall, the 1990 team was a little more consistant defensively, but the 1991 team was a bit more explosive offensively.



Hey, you were typing that as I was typing in my vote for the 1980 team!

great minds think alike! as the saying goes.. but really, of all the teams, i have a soft spot for THAT TEAM, it seemed like we sucked forever(but compared to now, it was only about 3 years post OJ).. started the year beating miami.. just was very enjoyable..

[The Senator]

FeartheLosing, on 08 February 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

An AFL team vs the 90 NFL Buffalo Bills....hrmmm

The one that wins a SB will be the best.

.

The 2013 Bills team will prove to be the best, but if there was a SB in Jan '65, Buffalo would have won - hands down - no questions asked - quod erat demonstratum - HIC FINIS EST...

GO BILLSSS!!!!!

19 and 0 baby!!!!

[It's in My Blood]

Buftex, on 08 February 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Why is everyone so pricky lately?  It would be one thing if he was trying to sell something...but the link seems pretty harmless.

13 years and no playoffs will do that to ya

[Tcali]

I think 88 may have been built best to win the SB--but the no huddle wasnt really in effect yet. 87 post strike was just nasty on D.

So the best teams in order 64,90,88,65,81,87,91

[Shoutbox]

first_and_ten, on 08 February 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think it's difficult to compare those two eras. Would the 90 team beat the 64 team? Most likely yes, but if we look at how each team fares compared to the quality of their own time period, the 64 team might be better.  Anyways, I think the two finalists would be the 90 team versus the 91 team. Winner, 91

But that's a ridiculous argument, as you at least point out in your post. Our 6-10 2012 Bills could beat the snot out of the very best pro football teams from the pre-merger era, due to modern football standards for size, conditioning, game strategy, etc...

You can only compare teams from the era in which they played. And while the 1990 Bills had a strong defense, it wasn't among the truly elite from the late-1980's/early-1990's. The offense certainly was among the very elite back then, but they at least had comparable rivals (Montana/Young 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, Moon's Oilers, Marino's Fins, Elway's Broncos).

The 1964 Bills were arguably the most dominant pro football team ever assembled from the 1960's. Their defense was simply unrivaled and set records for rushing defense and sacks. The seeds of the modern-day NFL defense were planted in Buffalo in 1964. Not only was the relatively new and innovative 4-3 defense perfected here by Joel Collier, but he even implemented the earliest 3-4 schemes ever seen in football. The offense wasn't too shabby, either. The Kemp/Gilchrist/Dubenion triplet (with Hall of Fame lineman, Billy Shaw, plus Lamonica as an awesome change-of-pace backup QB) could stack up well with any other offense that the AFL or NFL offered back then.

[Tcali]

Marc Miller, on 08 February 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

But that's a ridiculous argument, as you at least point out in your post. Our 6-10 2012 Bills could beat the snot out of the very best pro football teams from the pre-merger era, due to modern football standards for size, conditioning, game strategy, etc...

You can only compare teams from the era in which they played. And while the 1990 Bills had a strong defense, it wasn't among the truly elite from the late-1980's/early-1990's. The offense certainly was among the very elite back then, but they at least had comparable rivals (Montana/Young 49ers, Aikman's Cowboys, Moon's Oilers, Marino's Fins, Elway's Broncos).

The 1964 Bills were arguably the most dominant pro football team ever assembled from the 1960's. Their defense was simply unrivaled and set records for rushing defense and sacks. The seeds of the modern-day NFL defense were planted in Buffalo in 1964. Not only was the relatively new and innovative 4-3 defense perfected here by Joel Collier, but he even implemented the earliest 3-4 schemes ever seen in football. The offense wasn't too shabby, either. The Kemp/Gilchrist/Dubenion triplet (with Hall of Fame lineman, Billy Shaw, plus Lamonica as an awesome change-of-pace backup QB) could stack up well with any other offense that the AFL or NFL offered back then.

i agree differences in training etc have to be considered...but i think the 64 team with Billy Shaw,george saimes,McDole,sestak,Dunaway,Gilchrist Deuby etc would beat the 012 team,even though half of these people had to have second jobs in the offseason working construction etc--and didnt start getting into shape until training camp.

[Chandler#81]

I'm old enough to remember the '64 team and IMO they were more balanced and stronger than any Kelly-era team. Arguably the best RB in football and inarguably the best defense front to back in football. Ditto McGuire & Gogolak. What Kemp lacked in passing touch was made up for in field leadership. While Lamonica played a lot, he didn't unseat Jackie for the job.

Next best, IMHO, was the '99 team. Given that the Titans ended up a yard short of tying the SB on the last play, had the Miracle City Debacle not happened, THAT was our best chance for a World Title. Like the '64 team, there were split opinions on QB but the ground game, overall defense and ST aces would have matched up well with the Greatest Show on Turf.

I agree the '90 team was better balanced than '91. That one still hurts..  So, '64, '99, '90, in that order. Again, JMO.

[eball]

Bangarang, on 08 February 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Feel free to stop spamming your site everytime you want to have a discussion.

The dude has a good site that isn't competing with TBD or TSW...lighten up, Francis.

Chandler#81, on 08 February 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

I'm old enough to remember the '64 team and IMO they were more balanced and stronger than any Kelly-era team. Arguably the best RB in football and inarguably the best defense front to back in football. Ditto McGuire & Gogolak. What Kemp lacked in passing touch was made up for in field leadership. While Lamonica played a lot, he didn't unseat Jackie for the job.

Next best, IMHO, was the '99 team. Given that the Titans ended up a yard short of tying the SB on the last play, had the Miracle City Debacle not happened, THAT was our best chance for a World Title. Like the '64 team, there were split opinions on QB but the ground game, overall defense and ST aces would have matched up well with the Greatest Show on Turf.

I agree the '90 team was better balanced than '91. That one still hurts..  So, '64, '99, '90, in that order. Again, JMO.

I'm glad you brought up '99 because that team broke my heart more than any other.  I was in the goddamn stands in Nashville.  That team was going to win the Super Bowl.

[Tcali]

I dont think the 99 team was gonna win any SB with RJ at QB.

[eball]

Tcali, on 08 February 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

I dont think the 99 team was gonna win any SB with RJ at QB.

Think 2000 Ravens.  The '99 Bills' D was nasty, and whether it be Johnson or Flutie, they were moving the ball and scoring when they needed to.