Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Why did New England and Seattle meet twice in 1993? Seems odd.

Before the 1995 expansion both 5th place teams in the conference played a home and home against each other. They both finished in 5th place in 1992.

ChrisBabcock wrote:Before the 1995 expansion both 5th place teams in the conference played a home and home against each other. They both finished in 5th place in 1992.

Yup, though it was weird how they scheduled the Colts and Chargers to play twice in a 3-week span in 1992.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

Why did New England and Seattle meet twice in 1993? Seems odd.

Before the 1995 expansion both 5th place teams in the conference played a home and home against each other. They both finished in 5th place in 1992.

Yes, and the Patriots and Seahawks were originally scheduled to meet twice in 1982 since both finished in fifth-place in 1981, but their game at New England was wiped out because of the strike.

Hail Casares wrote:

Todd Pence wrote:Mirer also set a record for passng yards by a rookie quarterback at the time. In 1994, the Seahawks started 3-1, including impressive routs of the Raiders and Steelers, and Mirer was looking every bit like a maturing NFL quarterback. Then, for some reason, the roof fell in on him.

Mirer's 1994 wasn't horrible either. He improved from 1993 in some ways. 1995 was an embarrassment and before 1996 he was shipped to Chicago.

Miter regressed in 1995, leading the league in INT's, and was a disaster for most of 1996. He was traded to Chicago in 1997.

Reaser wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote:Before the 1995 expansion both 5th place teams in the conference played a home and home against each other. They both finished in 5th place in 1992.

Yup, though it was weird how they scheduled the Colts and Chargers to play twice in a 3-week span in 1992.

And there were a few other fifth-place teams that played twice in a three-week span:

TEAMS ASSIGNED FIFTH-PLACE SCHEDULE FROM 1978-1994 THAT MET TWICE IN THREE WEEKS:

N.Y. Jets vs. Kansas City, 1984 (Weeks 6 and 8)
Detroit vs. N.Y. Giants, 1988 (Weeks 7 and 9)
Dallas vs. Tampa Bay, 1990 (Weeks 5 and 7)
Minnesota vs. Phoenix Cardinals, 1991 (Weeks 7 and 9)
Indianapolis vs. San Diego, 1992 (Weeks 7 and 9)
Tampa Bay vs. Washington, 1994 (Weeks 14 and 16)

I know I am digging this thread up from the archives, but I have something to mention after this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iTNMpCAgsk&t=76s

This is from NFL Live's halftime show on that day (September 20, 1992). It may have been one of the most pivotal days in NFL History:

1. The Pats lost to the Seahawks, and got Bledsoe and the Tuna the next year. That put them on the path to the Belichick-Brady era.

2. The Packers replaced Majkowski with Favre, which helped to transform them into a winning franchise.

Before that day, these were two of the worst franchises in the league. However, both teams would be in the SB four years later, and they have been the two winningest franchises since 1993:

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-w ... since-1993

That must have been around the time of the changing of the guard, so to speak. Up to that time, the Redskins were one of the most successful franchises from 1971-92. However, since 1993, they have been the second-least successful team (of teams that have played every year since 1993. I won't count Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Houston. Detroit has been the least successful).

Nice subject to revive! Definitely a very pivotal game that set the tone for certain teams' futures!

As for the ’91 Pats, Dick MacPherson didn’t do bad at immediately taking over that 1-15 debacle from the year prior. They finished 6-10 and beat three playoff teams: Oilers, Bills, and the (yes, 8-8) Jets.

The following year, however, NE starts 0-8 (en route to 0-9 and, finally, 2-14) before health issues would keep Dick hospitalized until the finale. Apparently he didn’t want to fire any of his assistants which is why he was let go. Who knows how he does in ’93 if given that third year? He certainly needed quality players - especially a QB! His college QB, Don McPherson, probably could have started for the Pats in both ’91 & ’92. Bledsoe obviously would still be Pats’ pick in this case but considering that Tuna HAD TO be the one to take over for very obvious butterfly-effect/future-of-the-franchise reasons, Dick staying with NE is a ‘what-if’ absolutely NO Pats-fan would want to possibly entertain! This even if he may have ended up doing not bad at all with them. Maybe making the playoffs several times (as they would stay in those same uniforms, which would have been a plus with me).

Who knows, though? With Parcells' presence EVER so looming, maybe the Pats still fire Dick even if he does get rid of some of his assistants. And Tuna wasn’t the only one in the discussion. There was Ditka, Petitbon, Wannstedt, Dungy and college coaches, Jackie Sherrill, Steve Spurrier, and Fresno State's Jim Sweeney.

IvanNYC wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote:

Why did New England and Seattle meet twice in 1993? Seems odd.

Before the 1995 expansion both 5th place teams in the conference played a home and home against each other. They both finished in 5th place in 1992.

Yes, and the Patriots and Seahawks were originally scheduled to meet twice in 1982 since both finished in fifth-place in 1981, but their game at New England was wiped out because of the strike.

And in the NFC, it would have been the Cardinals & Bears playing twice. It would have marked the first time that both franchises met twice in the same season since 1952! I forget, at times, that they weren't in the same division following the '40s. They almost were placed in the same division for the merger, though. Not sure the exactitude of that possible alignment, but the Cards simply being in the NFC Central instead of eventual Tampa Bay would have made quite more sense! Geographically closer to the 'black and blue' along with being a former-Chi-town team and they being an old (est) franchise to boot.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:1. The Pats lost to the Seahawks, and got Bledsoe and the Tuna the next year. That put them on the path to the Belichick-Brady era.

I'm not seeing any connection between those two things. The original post mentioned that Drew Bledsoe blossomed into one of the game's best QBs...that is a bit much. Bledsoe was an average QB who threw the ball a lot. The Pats in general were inconsistent during Bledsoe's tenure....winning two division titles while finishing last or second-to-last in the division 5 times. Parcells' record with New England was 32-32, and I would guess the Bledsoe's record would be about .500 as well. The Pats were lucky to get the SB in 1996, as the Jags pulled off a huge upset of the #1 seed Broncos in the divisional round.

I don't really see any connection between Bledsoe-Tuna & Belichick-Brady eras. Belichick inherited a last place team. Only 3 starters from the 96 Super Bowl were starters in the 01 Super Bowl (all DBs).

Bryan wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:1. The Pats lost to the Seahawks, and got Bledsoe and the Tuna the next year. That put them on the path to the Belichick-Brady era.

I'm not seeing any connection between those two things. The original post mentioned that Drew Bledsoe blossomed into one of the game's best QBs...that is a bit much. Bledsoe was an average QB who threw the ball a lot. The Pats in general were inconsistent during Bledsoe's tenure....winning two division titles while finishing last or second-to-last in the division 5 times. Parcells' record with New England was 32-32, and I would guess the Bledsoe's record would be about .500 as well. The Pats were lucky to get the SB in 1996, as the Jags pulled off a huge upset of the #1 seed Broncos in the divisional round.

I don't really see any connection between Bledsoe-Tuna & Belichick-Brady eras. Belichick inherited a last place team. Only 3 starters from the 96 Super Bowl were starters in the 01 Super Bowl (all DBs).

Technically I agree with that. But Tuna DID immediately change the culture upon he arriving in NE (not just the unis). Yes, just two of four winning seasons, but 'Year 4' was a Super Bowl berth. Yes, Jacksonville did help but taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4' is taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4'. Even with Carroll's squad collapsing at the end of '99 which led to his dismissal, the culture was already completely turned around from earlier in the decade. They were still no longer those Pats of old.

With Belichick a DC in Super Bowl '96 if only for that one year, he not being a stranger to it all kept he within 'range' to be hired in 2000 with the rest then being History. Maybe if Tuna never came near Foxboro, perhaps Belichick (wherever he'd be in such a butterfly-effected hypothetical) may have still been given an offer in 2000 or even before that. But I just can't help but see Tuna - and, yes, Carroll a bit too - as being the 'set-up' man for it all. And WAY more than that in that he did...lead them to a Super Bowl! 'Set-up' men usually don't even make the playoffs at all yet alone make a title game. And though its all based on theory, and though yes Parcells never even made it to a SB without Hoodie, its safe enough to assume that Belichick learned SO MUCH from Tuna that Tuna should get a nice enough slice of credit for the whole Pats' 21st Century run (just like Paul Brown taking some credit for the '70s Steelers & '80s Forty Niners; and Gillman as well for the former, etc).

Maybe I am wrong, but Tuna's 1993 hiring to me is what got the ball rolling as far as NE being relevant to this very day.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Technically I agree with that. But Tuna DID immediately change the culture upon he arriving in NE (not just the unis). Yes, just two of four winning seasons, but 'Year 4' was a Super Bowl berth. Yes, Jacksonville did help but taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4' is taking a bad team to a SB in 'Year 4'. Even with Carroll's squad collapsing at the end of '99 which led to his dismissal, the culture was already completely turned around from earlier in the decade. They were still no longer those Pats of old.

Parcells was a better HC than Dick MacPherson....I'll give him that. Raymond Berry had a nice run as the Pats HC prior to MacPherson, and his tenure saw a surprise SB appearance as well. I would be surprised to see articles which thought Belichick was inheriting a Super Bowl-ready team with the Patriots in 2000. My recollection is that no one considered the Patriots to be an established winning franchise and no one thought Parcells (much less Pete Carroll) "set the table" for Belichick to simply step in and start winning. Which made their whole 2001 championship that much more remarkable. The Patriots had never really even come close to winning a title prior to Belichick (3 title appearances in 40+ years, 132-41 point differential), Belichick's HC record at that point was 41-55, and no one had heard of Tom Brady.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:But I just can't help but see Tuna - and, yes, Carroll a bit too - as being the 'set-up' man for it all. And WAY more than that in that he did...lead them to a Super Bowl! 'Set-up' men usually don't even make the playoffs at all yet alone make a title game.

The set up man "for it all"? I'm not really seeing much connection between the 1996 Pats and the 2001 Pats, much less the 1996 Pats and the 2018 Pats. After the Pats won the 2001 Super Bowl, did anyone think "well, its no big deal, because Belichick just won with Parcells' players"? Is kind of a nebulous concept anyway....George Wilson bitched about Don Shula getting credit in 1972 ("Joe Doakes could have won with those players"), but as ludicrous/petty was Wilson was being, he at least had a point since the core of the 72 Dolphin roster had been coached by Wilson. And upon further review, Wilson was Shula's HC when Shula was a DC in Detroit. So have we gotten this narrative wrong the whole time? Don Shula wasn't that good of a coach, the real coach of the year in 1972 should have been George Wilson?

74_75_78_79_ wrote:its safe enough to assume that Belichick learned SO MUCH from Tuna that Tuna should get a nice enough slice of credit for the whole Pats' 21st Century run (just like Paul Brown taking some credit for the '70s Steelers & '80s Forty Niners; and Gillman as well for the former, etc).

I've never heard of Paul Brown taking some credit for the 70's Steelers. Did Paul Brown actually say that? I guess the irony of your comment is that Chuck Noll broke into the coaching ranks under....Sid Gillman. So I guess Sid Gillman should take some credit for those 70's Steelers as well. Poor Chuck Noll...all he did was take the worst franchise in pro football history and make them arguably the best team ever with a total overhaul of the roster and staff.