Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

conace21 wrote:I do think Super Bowl XXV was an upset, though not nearly at the level as two others that Hoodie would be involved in (2001 and 2007 seasons.) There's the old adage "It's not how you start, it's how you finish." New York did start out 10-0, but they lost three of six down the stretch, all with Simms starting (including the Buffalo game where he was injured.) As previously mentioned, they just barely scraped by San Francisco.
Buffalo, on the other hand, started slowly. They had a bad loss early to Miami, and then needed a lot of special teams and defensive plays in order to come back against Denver and the Raiders. But the Bills finished hot, especially when they got the no-huddle offense working full-time. 95 points in two playoff games. It is very understandable how most observers thought the K Gun would keep firing.

I think how the Giants looked at the end of the regular season was a big factor in the 'upset' talk...they had been 'efficient' on offense with Phil Simms at QB, but they struggled to beat bad teams when Hostetler took over. I think the bigger upset was the Giants beating SF on the road. Lots of 3-peat talk, one of the most physical games I've ever seen, and, really, the Giants were incredibly lucky to win. The Niners probably run out the clock if Roger Craig doesn't fumble, and Bahr's FG was a tricky kick in the old Candlestick winds.

I don't really consider SB XXV to be an upset...from the game itself, I thought the Bills probably should have won because Thurman Thomas was clearly the best player on the field that day.

Comparing the 1986 Giants to the 1990 Giants, I would give the 1986 Giants the edge simply because Joe Morris was a great RB in the mid-80's and Mark Bavaro was the best TE in the game.

Underrated my ass.

They were slightly overrated.

They won at times in spite of their offense. They basically won playing conservative boring 'Let's just throw little screens and run run run' stuff.

For god's sake, the Falcons scored more points that season!

They were a 9-7 team disguised at 13-3.

A boring team that won by playing not to lose.

CSKreager wrote:Underrated my ass.

They were slightly overrated.

They won at times in spite of their offense. They basically won playing conservative boring 'Let's just throw little screens and run run run' stuff.

For god's sake, the Falcons scored more points that season!

They were a 9-7 team disguised at 13-3.

A boring team that won by playing not to lose.

The two Coughlin Super Bowl winners had regular season records of 10-6 and 9-7, respectively. In the latter case, they were 7-7 with two weeks left.

sheajets wrote:Seems like it gets played up a lot that the win over Buffalo was some sort of monumental upset. When you look at that 90 Giants team they were really a model of precision efficiency and smart football. Nothing flashy, never beating themselves, well coached, disciplined.

The only thing they were a model of was boredom and conservatism. Dull as dirt, boring offense, all they did was run run run 90 percent of the time.

Parcells' so-called amazing game plan was basically to be even more conservative than usual.

He played not to lose. He didn't play to win. He was nervous that Hostetler would melt so he basically took the ball out of his hands.

That SB 25 gameplan was overrated just like that 90 NYG team who basically got most of their wins against creampuffs (DAL 2x, PHX 2x, MIN, NE, Colts, Lions)

BD Sullivan wrote:

conace21 wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:I think that they were slightly underrated. Their 86 team gets so much love, but the 1990 Giants were deeper and more talented.

I disagree with the more talented part, starting at the top. LT was at his peak in 1986. He was at the point in 1990 where he had to pick his spots. A check of postseason honors:
Pro Bowl players
1986: 8, 1990: 6

AP 1st Team All Pro
1986: 4, 1990: 2
(Landeta was All Pro both years.)

I do agree they were underrated, but they probably were the weakest of Buffalo's four SB opponents.

Not sure if LT was at his peak in '86, simply because I think it was the following year that he claimed he had stopped doing cocaine by playing golf.

His '88 drug suspension would suggest otherwise.

conace21 wrote:

7DnBrnc53 wrote:I think that they were slightly underrated. Their 86 team gets so much love, but the 1990 Giants were deeper and more talented.

I disagree with the more talented part, starting at the top. LT was at his peak in 1986. He was at the point in 1990 where he had to pick his spots. A check of postseason honors:
Pro Bowl players
1986: 8, 1990: 6

AP 1st Team All Pro
1986: 4, 1990: 2
(Landeta was All Pro both years.)

I do agree they were underrated, but they probably were the weakest of Buffalo's four SB opponents.

The 1986 Giants had a more dominant post-season run, and they had more Pro Bowlers, but they weren't as good or deep at some positions (like OL, WR, and RB) as the 1990 Giants.

However, I agree with Parcells: The 1989 team was the best in that era.