The NFC Smash Mouth/AFC Finesse Myth back in the day

[CSKreager]

Back when the NFC was all but invincible in the SB's, there was a perception- that the NFC was real physical smash mouth football and AFC was soft finesse football.

I always thought that the haughty NFC was basically winning in spite of their QB's.

San Fran was playing finesse football, yet the Giants and Bears of the world pretty much hid their QB's and just ran and ran the ball.

It felt like manly physical football was '"Lets' not take any chances with our QB making a mistake."

Everyone always said the AFC teams were soft, so I guess basically the NFC was so good they could win playing 10-on-11 other than Montana and the 49ers.

[rhickok1109]

I don't remember that being the perception at the time. In fact, my perception was that the NFC team usually had the better QB, and I think that perception was pretty common.

Looking at the stretch from SB XVI through XXXI, when the NFC won 15 of 16 Super Bowls, including 13 in row, I think the NFC had the better QB in all but five of those games (including the one loss). And, in the four games when the NFC didn't have the better QB but won anyway (Giants in XXI and XXV, Redskins in XXII and XXVI), they did indeed play "real physical smash mouth football."

[7DnBrnc53]

I am not sure that Aikman was much better than Jim Kelly (in SB's 27 and 28), if at all.

And, some of the problems that the AFC had from 1984-96 was matchups. For example, I think that Denver would have given SF a better game in SB XIX, Miami or the Raiders would have done better than NE in SB XX, and the Seahawks could have defeated the Giants in 1986 if they got by Denver and/or Cleveland (they beat the Giants that year at home, and they were the hottest team in the NFL at the end of the year).

Also, the Bills would have been better off playing the 49ers in 1990, and the Oilers would have done better than the Bills did against Dallas in SB's 27 and 28.

[BD Sullivan]

Also, the Bills would have been better off playing the 49ers in 1990

They would have faced Steve Young at QB, since Montana was almost certainly out after Leonard Marshall broke his finger late in the NFC title game.

[7DnBrnc53]

Also, the Bills would have been better off playing the 49ers in 1990

They would have faced Steve Young at QB, since Montana was almost certainly out after Leonard Marshall broke his finger late in the NFC title game.

Even though Young wasn't what he would be in a few years, he would be no picnic for Buffalo, but the Bills probably don't face the type of defensive scheme that the Giants employed against them, and the 49ers didn't have the rushing attack that the Giants had because Roger Craig was washed up.

[JuggernautJ]

San Fran was playing finesse football....

Grumble Grumble grumble Grrrr....

[CSKreager]

I am not sure that Aikman was much better than Jim Kelly (in SB's 27 and 28), if at all.

And, some of the problems that the AFC had from 1984-96 was matchups. For example, I think that Denver would have given SF a better game in SB XIX, Miami or the Raiders would have done better than NE in SB XX, and the Seahawks could have defeated the Giants in 1986 if they got by Denver and/or Cleveland (they beat the Giants that year at home, and they were the hottest team in the NFL at the end of the year).

Also, the Bills would have been better off playing the 49ers in 1990, and the Oilers would have done better than the Bills did against Dallas in SB's 27 and 28.

Or Houston/Washington in SB 26.

Had that happened, the 1991 Redskins would have to sweat out a SB instead of coasting.

[conace21]

I don't remember that being the perception at the time. In fact, my perception was that the NFC team usually had the better QB, and I think that perception was pretty common.

Looking at the stretch from SB XVI through XXXI, when the NFC won 15 of 16 Super Bowls, including 13 in row, I think the NFC had the better QB in all but five of those games (including the one loss). And, in the four games when the NFC didn't have the better QB but won anyway (Giants in XXI and XXV, Redskins in XXII and XXVI), they did indeed play "real physical smash mouth football."

If you mean better QB as the game is approaching (as opposed to better QB, career wise), then I think that the 49ers only had the better QB in Super Bowl 23 and 29. Ken Anderson, Dan Marino, and Boomer Esiason each won the AP MVP and was the consensus All Pro QB that season. You could argue that Esiason's postseason performance has dropped because of injury, so the 49ers did have the edge at QB at that time.
On that note, you could even argue that Washington has the edge with Mark Rypien in SB 26.

[Bryan]

I don't know if it was a myth. I think most of the top defenses and top offensive lines were in the NFC during the 1980's-early 90's. San Fran had a very physical defense and a backfield of Craig and Rathman. The Redskins had the Hogs. The Giants and Bears had powerful O-lines and great defenses. The Cowboys had a superb O-line. You are basically comparing these teams to the Broncos and Bills of the AFC. So yeah, the top NFC teams could be seen as "smashmouth" while the top AFC teams could be seen as "finesse". The 1988 Bengals are the exception, but they were kind of out-physicaled in their SB matchup with the Niners. Every other SB matchup from 1984-1994 featured a smashmouth NFC team vs. a finesse AFC team.

My favorite smashmouth matchup of that era was an AFC one...the Christian Okoye/Barry Word Chiefs versus the Marion Butts/Rod Bernstine Chargers.

[7DnBrnc53]

My favorite smashmouth matchup of that era was an AFC one...the Christian Okoye/Barry Word Chiefs versus the Marion Butts/Rod Bernstine Chargers.

With the Chargers, I have wondered what would have happened if they got the 1 or 2 seed by tie-breaker in 92, and played Buffalo. The Bills had Pittsburgh's and Miami's numbers at the time, and the Oilers seemed to melt under the postseason spotlight. However, the Chargers were like an NFC team, and may have done better than those other teams did against the Bills. They may have defeated them at home that year.