What-if Steelers get by Denver in ’89 divisional?

[74_75_78_79_]

Who wins that Noll vs Bud Carson rubberband match at the Dawg Pound? And how better a game, for what it possibly could have been worth, does the winner give that mighty juggernaut in SBXXIV two weeks later if really a better game at all?

It’s easy to assume, at first, in retrospect that Pit & Clev went in opposite directions after their respective 0-2 (10-92) & 2-0 starts, but not necessarily. After Steelers avenged that historically notorious opener in Week #6 at Cleveland (both teams now 3-3), Browns bounced back winning their next four games as Steelers now were at 4-6 by then; getting clobbered the last two weeks, first at Denver and then shut-out at home to Bears.

After tying Marty’s Chiefs in Wk #11, Browns would then lose their next three only to then catch themselves by beating playoff-participants-to-be Minnesota and at Houston (completing their sweep over them) to close things out, winning the division in the process. They then go on to beat Buffalo in the divisional albeit the ‘bickering’ version which was nothing like either Bills installment that was the year prior or early-’90s. So Clev still had some ‘good’ in them before bottom completely fell out the following year, going into the AFCC on a 3-game-win-streak.

Steelers would have been on high-momentum had they gotten past Denver but winning two-in-a-row in the ‘Pound may have been a tall order. And does Kosar throw 4 INTs (7 turnovers total for Browns) again in such an event? It would have been a chess match being that Carson had quite the familiarity with Noll (see SBXIV, Steelers/Rams).

But how would either have done versus those Forty Niners? I once thought that Steelers would have been totally blown-out as well had it been they instead of Denver, but I’ve since backed off just a bit. Don’t get me wrong, a convincing loss is a convincing loss, but I have to echo what I believe someone here once opined on another post in that the game may have been just like the regular season match between both from the following year (SF 27, Pit 7). The Champs beat the spread, but Steelers still have their moments at least in the beginning and still may have been within two TDs at the half and even end of 3rd quarter before SF would put on the finishing touches. As was the case in their ’84 (and ’90) affair between both clubs, Noll’s strategy simply would have been to slow the tempo down as much as possible.

How much of a FWIW-‘better’ game would Cleveland have given San Fran? The only real ‘gage’ to go by in imagining this, is their just one game they played against each other while both were good at the same time and that’s their ’87 affair...SF winning 38-24, Rice having a monster game! And those ’86/’87 installments (Marty still onboard) were clearly better than ’89; and SF were even better going into New Orleans than they ever were during that ’87 regular season.

[7DnBrnc53]

If the Steelers beat Denver, I think they beat the Browns the next week. Then, in Supe 24, they hang in with SF for a half (the 89 Steelers were a team that was so young, they probably wouldn't have known that they were supposed to be heavy underdogs) before the 49ers pull away mid-3rd after a Brister INT (35-17 SF is the final).

Here's another scenario that I was thinking about for that year, though: What if the Steelers and Bills win their divisional matchups, and the Bills decide to start the game with the no-huddle offense? How do the Steelers do?

[BD Sullivan]

After Week 10, the Brown were 7-3, but then went 0-3-1, needing to win both of their final games to avoid missing the playoffs. They beat Minnesota in OT and then won in the final minute at Houston. In the playoff against Buffalo, they avoid a last-second loss when a Buffalo receiver dropped the ball. Pittsburgh definitely had the momentum in that would=be game, but the Browns still could have won--before then getting destroyed by the Niners.

[74_75_78_79_]

I started a 'what-if' Steelers@Bills hypo-'89 AFCC thread a while back. I forgot what I wrote at the time but at least right now I think had Bills got there instead, they likely give SF an even better game than Pit or Clev although the game itself may have been enough of a convincer just the same. Perhaps it would have been like the actual, 21-10 at Candlestick, late regular season affair between both squads. The buck may have stopped for the Steelers at Cleveland and even more likely had they gone to Buffalo from Denver. As 'bickering' as they were, they did - as you remind us, BD - barely lose to Browns. They would have been scrappy enough against SF in that year before 1990.

End of day though...this is all just speculation (simply fun to talk about). Let's not pretend that Denver was not the best in the AFC that year despite the conference being at an all-time low and Broncos indeed almost losing to the 'Burgh. It doesn't matter if these teams would have hypothetically given SF a better game, Broncos still were the last team standing in the conference and you can't take it away from them. Same with SD instead of Blitzburgh taking on SF in '94. Chargers, as 'un-sexy' they were (contrary to Air Coryell, Humphries instead of Fouts…), were the best/most-balanced in the AFC and deserved to go (even if Steelers may have matched-up better).

As much as I and others would have liked to see the Browns actually play against Giants/Redskins/Forty Niners in these SBs, it's a shame many in retrospect actually respect those Browns more-so than the team that actually beat them simply (superficially) because they got slaughtered on the big stage each time. Maybe Browns do even worse (maybe Steelers do even worse in SBXXIX); we'll never ever know. It's like a kid who's the worst player on the high school football team but at least sticks it out to the end yet kids who never went out for the team at all (or the 'cool', 'popular' kids who quit after one week of double-sessions) seem to get more respect in the hallways anyway.

Anyway, had Steelers made Super Bowl XXIV (they vs San Fran, New Orleans), very likely-as-hell the spread would have been the biggest in Super Bowl history, perhaps 20 points! Even greater than Colts/Jets, Forty Niners/Chargers! SUCH a 'David-vs-Goliath' Story leading up, it would have been! This despite a four-(out of four)-time Lombardi-winner squaring-up against a first-year HC. Sure enough Browns nor Bills would have been underdog by more than 13 (maybe just an even ten).

[7DnBrnc53]

End of day though...this is all just speculation (simply fun to talk about). Let's not pretend that Denver was not the best in the AFC that year despite the conference being at an all-time low and Broncos indeed almost losing to the 'Burgh. It doesn't matter if these teams would have hypothetically given SF a better game, Broncos still were the last team standing in the conference and you can't take it away from them. Same with SD instead of Blitzburgh taking on SF in '94. Chargers, as 'un-sexy' they were (contrary to Air Coryell, Humphries instead of Fouts…), were the best/most-balanced in the AFC and deserved to go (even if Steelers may have matched-up better).

Out of those two teams, I think the 89 Broncos were better and more deserving of making the SB. The 89 Broncos played more games against teams that would finish above .500 (including three against the NFC East powerhouse Eagles, Giants, and Skins [Gary Kubiak was the QB when Denver beat the Skins on the road that year on MNF]). They also had the #1 defense in scoring (SD was ninth in the NFL in 94).

The 1994 Chargers were an example of what was plaguing the AFC at the time. The more talented teams, like the 1991-93 Oilers and 94 Raiders, would underachieve, and you would have BS teams like the 1992 and 93 Bills, 94 Chargers, and 95 Chiefs either getting to the SB or getting home field. No wonder why the AFC couldn't win a darn SB for so many years.

[CSKreager]

End of day though...this is all just speculation (simply fun to talk about). Let's not pretend that Denver was not the best in the AFC that year despite the conference being at an all-time low and Broncos indeed almost losing to the 'Burgh. It doesn't matter if these teams would have hypothetically given SF a better game, Broncos still were the last team standing in the conference and you can't take it away from them. Same with SD instead of Blitzburgh taking on SF in '94. Chargers, as 'un-sexy' they were (contrary to Air Coryell, Humphries instead of Fouts…), were the best/most-balanced in the AFC and deserved to go (even if Steelers may have matched-up better).

Out of those two teams, I think the 89 Broncos were better and more deserving of making the SB. The 89 Broncos played more games against teams that would finish above .500 (including three against the NFC East powerhouse Eagles, Giants, and Skins [Gary Kubiak was the QB when Denver beat the Skins on the road that year on MNF]). They also had the #1 defense in scoring (SD was ninth in the NFL in 94).

The 1994 Chargers were an example of what was plaguing the AFC at the time. The more talented teams, like the 1991-93 Oilers and 94 Raiders, would underachieve, and you would have BS teams like the 1992 and 93 Bills, 94 Chargers, and 95 Chiefs either getting to the SB or getting home field. No wonder why the AFC couldn't win a darn SB for so many years.

Chargers were way more blatant a BS team than the Bills. I mean, a team coming back from big-time deficits was more unsustainable than, say, the 93 Bills forcing a lot of turnovers.

[7DnBrnc53]

End of day though...this is all just speculation (simply fun to talk about). Let's not pretend that Denver was not the best in the AFC that year despite the conference being at an all-time low and Broncos indeed almost losing to the 'Burgh. It doesn't matter if these teams would have hypothetically given SF a better game, Broncos still were the last team standing in the conference and you can't take it away from them. Same with SD instead of Blitzburgh taking on SF in '94. Chargers, as 'un-sexy' they were (contrary to Air Coryell, Humphries instead of Fouts…), were the best/most-balanced in the AFC and deserved to go (even if Steelers may have matched-up better).

Out of those two teams, I think the 89 Broncos were better and more deserving of making the SB. The 89 Broncos played more games against teams that would finish above .500 (including three against the NFC East powerhouse Eagles, Giants, and Skins [Gary Kubiak was the QB when Denver beat the Skins on the road that year on MNF]). They also had the #1 defense in scoring (SD was ninth in the NFL in 94).

The 1994 Chargers were an example of what was plaguing the AFC at the time. The more talented teams, like the 1991-93 Oilers and 94 Raiders, would underachieve, and you would have BS teams like the 1992 and 93 Bills, 94 Chargers, and 95 Chiefs either getting to the SB or getting home field. No wonder why the AFC couldn't win a darn SB for so many years.

Chargers were way more blatant a BS team than the Bills. I mean, a team coming back from big-time deficits was more unsustainable than, say, the 93 Bills forcing a lot of turnovers.

The 93 Bills also faced several teams with shaky kickers. Their wins @Dallas (Lin Elliott was replaced by Eddie Murray the following week after telling Jimmy Johnson that he didn't have any confidence after missing a kick against the Bills), @New England (they had the rookie Scott "missin" Sisson, who missed a key FG in that game. He would be replaced by Matt Bahr before season's end), @Philly, and at home in Week 17 against the Jets (Blanchard missed a short one in that game).

[74_75_78_79_]

I only saw bits and pieces, but I finally was able to see that “tale of four cities” Christmas night Bengals@Vikings MNF finale (commercials included; a ‘Bud Bowl II’ ad amongst them). I got to see the via satellite shots of both Majkowski and Dwayne Woodruff’s living rooms throughout the game. Needless to say it’s my favorite Christmas football memory. Woodruff said in the post-game interview that they planned to come even harder at Houston than their last two games against them which they then did the following New Years Eve.

It would be the last-hurrah of the Burnsie era in Minnesota; was funny seeing him get doused with the Gatorade. All this talk about Steelers/Browns/Bills giving SF a FWIW better game, but had Cincy actually gotten into the playoffs instead, depending which team showed up, they would have been even more dangerous than Steelers; maybe even repeating as AFC champs. And you know how familiar Sam Wyche was with SF.

End of day though...this is all just speculation (simply fun to talk about). Let's not pretend that Denver was not the best in the AFC that year despite the conference being at an all-time low and Broncos indeed almost losing to the 'Burgh. It doesn't matter if these teams would have hypothetically given SF a better game, Broncos still were the last team standing in the conference and you can't take it away from them. Same with SD instead of Blitzburgh taking on SF in '94. Chargers, as 'un-sexy' they were (contrary to Air Coryell, Humphries instead of Fouts…), were the best/most-balanced in the AFC and deserved to go (even if Steelers may have matched-up better).

Out of those two teams, I think the 89 Broncos were better and more deserving of making the SB. The 89 Broncos played more games against teams that would finish above .500 (including three against the NFC East powerhouse Eagles, Giants, and Skins [Gary Kubiak was the QB when Denver beat the Skins on the road that year on MNF]). They also had the #1 defense in scoring (SD was ninth in the NFL in 94).

The 1994 Chargers were an example of what was plaguing the AFC at the time. The more talented teams, like the 1991-93 Oilers and 94 Raiders, would underachieve, and you would have BS teams like the 1992 and 93 Bills, 94 Chargers, and 95 Chiefs either getting to the SB or getting home field. No wonder why the AFC couldn't win a darn SB for so many years.

Chargers were way more blatant a BS team than the Bills. I mean, a team coming back from big-time deficits was more unsustainable than, say, the 93 Bills forcing a lot of turnovers.

I don't know, perhaps I still to this day try to 'make sense' of that '94 defeat; my most-painful Steeler-memory ever, noticably more-so than SBXXX the following year. Maybe I am giving SD more credit than I should along with giving my own '94 Steelers less. Upsets do happen and perhaps I should see it as that. However, and many forget, SD did start 6-0 in '94. They faltered down stretch (barely beat Steelers at home in finale vs their backups), but do remember Theismann at the beginning of playoffs predicting SD representing the AFC; his reasoning that they (as I said) were more balanced.

I, at the time, was much more worried going into the divisional game vs Browns. Cowher still didn't win a playoff game yet and also was worried Steelers would not be able to hat-trick them (the very team that just beat Tuna in the 1st-Rd, and was still fresh off their late-season win at Big D). Once Steelers actually blew them out, 29-9, I (unfortunately) felt real good and confident going into that AFCCG.

Chargers may have simply been too-balanced for their own good in that SB. Whereas Steelers had that...Blitz (Lloyd/Greene would have made it real hard for Young IMO), and Woodson could more-than hold his own against Rice, SD simply didn't have any specialty that could match-up vs SF. Maybe their run-game could do well vs SF's run-defense (early on they chewed-up clock on a drive, Natrone running it in to make it 14-7), but being how high-powered that SF offense was, they had no choice but to play catch-up; and despite having Seau, their D as a whole really didn't have the pass-rush to offer them.

Maybe any of the Reeves Denver SB-teams were better, but still do respect the Ross-era Chargers. In '92 they were quite capable of making the SB as well. Maybe Dolphins eliminate them anyway, but that Miami rain/mud leaves it to 'what-if'-status. And they seemed quite dangerous going into the '95 playoffs, but thanks to Stan's 5 INTs vs Colts, I then breathed a sigh of relief.