Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

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.

They had some oddities when it comes to offensive statistics. Though I bet if somebody asked how many yards they threw for as a team in 1990 most would be under by a few hundred yards. Actually it was about 2900. Which is not a great total but certainly not bad for a team that didn't trail often and nothing out of the ordinary for the era. They also threw only 5 INT's all year which is an astonishingly minuscule total. Their leading receiver only had 39 catches and that was Meggett. Baker led all WR's with 26 catches. Truly unusual totals that we'll likely never see again. When they did decide to throw it they made sure to spread things around.

What I do remember though is when they were pressed to abandon their conservative running game and press the ball down the field, they did so successfully. It's just that they chose not to when they didn't absolutely need to. Anderson/Hampton/Tillman did not have amazing statistical seasons but that were really the very definition of bruising backs that just steadily wore out a defense. And they were fairly automatics in short yardage. Very tough to bring down.

Their own defense was dominant but not on a flashy QB killing/thunderous hits manner like the old Bears, but they had a great secondary (Everson Walls was a tremendous pickup...I think he played both S and CB at times that year) It was very hard to throw or run on them, and they were probably the best tackling team in the league who were extremely stingy in the red zone and had great team speed on defense.

Recently watched the Bears and 49ers playoff games - reminded me how much I miss Madden and Sumerall. Making the playoff run without their starting QB and an "over the hill" feature back - one of my favorite seasons watching football.

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

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.

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.

The 1986 Giants were probably a slightly better team, but the 1990 Giants were a tough, scrappy team that was every bit as good as the 49ers and Bills. New York was an eight-point underdog to San Francisco, but they should have been about a three-point underdog at best. Their early December MNF game was in San Fran was a tough defensive battle and the 7-3 score should have been an indicator that the NFC Championship would be a close game. The Bills were favored by seven or so in the Super Bowl, based mainly on their 51-3 pasting of the Raiders in the AFC Championship game, when they probably should have been favored by three points. I think most people look at the 1990 Giants as some sort of fluke, but they weren't. The three best teams in the NFL in 1990 were the Bills, 49ers and Giants, and all were probably separated by a point or so under normal conditions. The Giants happened to win against both teams on a long field goal in the final seconds that went good in the first game, and a long field goal in the final seconds that went just right in the second game.
The loss of Simms did not hurt the team, although I think the Giants would have still won the Super Bowl with Simms at QB. Jeff Hostetler proved himself to be one of the great in-season replacement QB's in pro football history when he stepped in and led the Giants to the Super Bowl. They had a nice blend of ball control and tough defense, and were able to overcome the loss of Simms as Hostetler was able to play ball control effectively. I do not consider Super Bowl XXV to be an upset, I think both teams were evenly matched and the game could have gone either way, and because of Norwood's kick that was a 50-50 or less proposition, it was. As it turned out, the MVP of the game was actually Parcells, whose brilliant game plan was the difference. The ball control game kept the ball out of Kelly's hands; the Bills averaged a point every minute they had the ball. The Giants held onto the ball for 40 minutes, averaged a half a point every minute, and won the game.

Rupert Patrick wrote:The 1986 Giants were probably a slightly better team, but the 1990 Giants were a tough, scrappy team that was every bit as good as the 49ers and Bills. New York was an eight-point underdog to San Francisco, but they should have been about a three-point underdog at best. Their early December MNF game was in San Fran was a tough defensive battle and the 7-3 score should have been an indicator that the NFC Championship would be a close game. The Bills were favored by seven or so in the Super Bowl, based mainly on their 51-3 pasting of the Raiders in the AFC Championship game, when they probably should have been favored by three points. I think most people look at the 1990 Giants as some sort of fluke, but they weren't. The three best teams in the NFL in 1990 were the Bills, 49ers and Giants, and all were probably separated by a point or so under normal conditions. The Giants happened to win against both teams on a long field goal in the final seconds that went good in the first game, and a long field goal in the final seconds that went just right in the second game.
The loss of Simms did not hurt the team, although I think the Giants would have still won the Super Bowl with Simms at QB. Jeff Hostetler proved himself to be one of the great in-season replacement QB's in pro football history when he stepped in and led the Giants to the Super Bowl. They had a nice blend of ball control and tough defense, and were able to overcome the loss of Simms as Hostetler was able to play ball control effectively. I do not consider Super Bowl XXV to be an upset, I think both teams were evenly matched and the game could have gone either way, and because of Norwood's kick that was a 50-50 or less proposition, it was. As it turned out, the MVP of the game was actually Parcells, whose brilliant game plan was the difference. The ball control game kept the ball out of Kelly's hands; the Bills averaged a point every minute they had the ball. The Giants held onto the ball for 40 minutes, averaged a half a point every minute, and won the game.

Probably even less than 50/50. Norwood did not have a big leg, and that was from a the hashmark, on a wet grass field in 1990...well before the age of the robo kickers. 47 yards in that situation was a tough kick. Poor guy gets way too much grief for that.

Apparently they are underrated. Bills being favored is understandable, especially G-men not having Simms, but with Tuna & LT onboard (and, yes, Hoodie), SBXXV not an "upset" at the end of the day. Not even a 'minor' one. Many keep forgetting that Giants - & SF - were the last undefeateds that year, both starting out 10-0 (one week shy of an 11-0 vs 11-0 MNF showdown). And the Giants were a regular contender the last 5 years, with a Ring to boot.

Many keep forgetting that Giants - & SF - were the last undefeateds that year, both starting out 10-0 (one week shy of an 11-0 vs 11-0 MNF showdown).

I vividly remember that MNF matchup being hyped up weeks, possibly a month in advance. Two potential 11-0 teams going toe to toe on Monday night. It was a huge letdown (playing up the game-wise) when both lost in week 11!

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.