1989 NFL season discussion

[7DnBrnc53]

Based on how the Vikings/Rams fared in the playoffs, was the NFC even THAT good in the 1st place?

Those teams fell off a cliff the next year. That says a lot.

From 1984-96, the NFC was never that good as people think. They played a lot of AFC flotsam.

AFC football didn't begin until September 1, 1996 (Denver 31, Jets 0). That's when it got real.

[SeahawkFever]

Based on how the Vikings/Rams fared in the playoffs, was the NFC even THAT good in the 1st place?

Those teams fell off a cliff the next year. That says a lot.

From 1984-96, the NFC was never that good as people think. They played a lot of AFC flotsam.

AFC football didn't begin until September 1, 1996 (Denver 31, Jets 0). That's when it got real.

Out of curiosity is the inverse of your argument also something you’d contend?

If you think the NFC is overrated in those years, was the AFC underrated in those years?

[7DnBrnc53]

was the AFC underrated in those years?

No, it wasn't. It was a shaky conference that usually didn't deserve to win a Super Bowl.

[Mark]

I seem to recall a magazine or book around the time stating that the best and worst teams were in the NFC. They argued that overall the conferences were equal in talent but not equally distributed. Based on that it isn't a surprise that the NFC would win so many Super Bowls but not necessarily dominate the inter conference games.

[SeahawkFever]

Based on how the Vikings/Rams fared in the playoffs, was the NFC even THAT good in the 1st place?

Those teams fell off a cliff the next year. That says a lot.

I don’t know if I’d say it for Los Angeles, but that era of the Minnesota Vikings I’d argue was at its peak in 1988.

11-5 record and really good statistically. Not a team that had the quarterback to go very far in the playoffs most years (Wade Wilson appears to be a fine game manager but not much more), but they had some good targets, and a really good defense (88 Vikings defense actually allowed the lowest passer rating of the 1980’s).

I’d say this is at least a solid team in 88, but as for 89, I’m sure the Herschel Walker trade could’ve felt like a shock to the system.

[CSKreager]

let me go a different path:

1984-1996, which AFC teams SHOULD have reached those Super Bowls? Since 7DnBrnc53 doesn’t think highly of the Bills, I am intrigued to see how an alternate universe AFC shapes out

[CSKreager]

was the AFC underrated in those years?

No, it wasn't. It was a shaky conference that usually didn't deserve to win a Super Bowl.

If the AFC was a shaky conference and the NFC a myth, then how exactly does one look at that entire 13 year run between SB’s 18-32?

[7DnBrnc53]

If the AFC was a shaky conference and the NFC a myth, then how exactly does one look at that entire 13 year run between SB’s 18-32?

I look at it like this. A series of good (but overrated) NFC teams beat (with some exceptions) severely flawed AFC teams.

I call it the SB Myth era because the team that won (by a huge margin most of the time) seemed to be considered bigger than life and on the verge of a dynasty.

Now, to be fair, two of those teams (49ers and Cowboys) did have dynasties. However, it's important to look at who those teams beat in the SB.

49ers:

1981 SB XVI: The 1981 Bengals were not that far from starting 0-5. They only played five games against winning teams that year. Also, they may have benefitted from Bradshaw's injury late in the season in Oakland.
1984 SB XIX: The 1984 Dolphins were a one-dimensional team with no defense (in hindsight, it doesn't shock me that Marino didn't return to a Super Bowl).
1988 SB XXIII: The 1988 Bengals were probably the best team that they beat of the five. They were hurt by the losses of Stanley Wilson and Tim Krumrie (I heard something once about how the game plan may have revolved around Wilson).
1989 SB XXIV: Elway was sick as a dog in that game. He wouldn't have played if it was a regular season game. Also, Broncos DC Wade Phillips decided to run a static 3-4 (a no-no against the WCO).
1994 SB XXIX: The 1994 Chargers were one of the worst teams ever to make the Super Bowl.

Cowboys:

1992 and 93 Bills: Benefitted from a vastly incompetent AFC. Were a worn-down team that made the Cowboys look good.
1995 Steelers: O'Donnell handed them that game. They were on their way to a collapse.

As for the SB Myth era title, what pushed me to that is something that Hub Arkush said in Pro Football Weekly after the Broncos won back to back SB's. He said that they couldn't compete with the 80's and 90's powers like the Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys. I thought that was total rubbish.

[CSKreager]

If the AFC was a shaky conference and the NFC a myth, then how exactly does one look at that entire 13 year run between SB’s 18-32?

I look at it like this. A series of good (but overrated) NFC teams beat (with some exceptions) severely flawed AFC teams.

I call it the SB Myth era because the team that won (by a huge margin most of the time) seemed to be considered bigger than life and on the verge of a dynasty.

Now, to be fair, two of those teams (49ers and Cowboys) did have dynasties. However, it's important to look at who those teams beat in the SB.

49ers:

1981 SB XVI: The 1981 Bengals were not that far from starting 0-5. They only played five games against winning teams that year. Also, they may have benefitted from Bradshaw's injury late in the season in Oakland.
1984 SB XIX: The 1984 Dolphins were a one-dimensional team with no defense (in hindsight, it doesn't shock me that Marino didn't return to a Super Bowl).
1988 SB XXIII: The 1988 Bengals were probably the best team that they beat of the five. They were hurt by the losses of Stanley Wilson and Tim Krumrie (I heard something once about how the game plan may have revolved around Wilson).
1989 SB XXIV: Elway was sick as a dog in that game. He wouldn't have played if it was a regular season game. Also, Broncos DC Wade Phillips decided to run a static 3-4 (a no-no against the WCO).
1994 SB XXIX: The 1994 Chargers were one of the worst teams ever to make the Super Bowl.

Cowboys:

1992 and 93 Bills: Benefitted from a vastly incompetent AFC. Were a worn-down team that made the Cowboys look good.
1995 Steelers: O'Donnell handed them that game. They were on their way to a collapse.

As for the SB Myth era title, what pushed me to that is something that Hub Arkush said in Pro Football Weekly after the Broncos won back to back SB's. He said that they couldn't compete with the 80's and 90's powers like the Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys. I thought that was total rubbish.

The “vastly incompetent” AFC had all 6 playoff teams win 10+ games in 1992 unlike the previous year where 9-7/8-8 got in

Meanwhile the NFC was terrible outside of DAL/SF when the Redskins and Giants aged in dog years.

Remember in 1994, had Minnesota lost on the final Monday night NOBODY outside of DAL/SF in the NFC would have even had 10 wins whereas the AFC of 94 had 5 such teams

[7DnBrnc53]

The “vastly incompetent” AFC had all 6 playoff teams win 10+ games in 1992 unlike the previous year where 9-7/8-8 got in

And three of those teams couldn't beat a banged-up Bills team (one of them was up 35-3 in the third quarter and still lost).

Meanwhile the NFC was terrible outside of DAL/SF when the Redskins and Giants aged in dog years.

Actually, the Giants weren't that old, but they had an incompetent HC in Ray Handley, and then an incompetent QB in Dave Brown.

Remember in 1994, had Minnesota lost on the final Monday night NOBODY outside of DAL/SF in the NFC would have even had 10 wins whereas the AFC of 94 had 5 such teams

And two of them lost to San Diego, one of the worst SB participants ever.