NFL Network's Top 10 What-Ifs: Number 8

What if the Bills had won Super Bowl XXV?

The show hypothesizes that they would have won as many as three Super Bowls in their four-year run, the only exception being XXVII. I don't know about that; there are too many other factors at play that are completely unknown. What fascinates me more is what might have happened to the legacies of Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. How would Parcells be perceived with just one Super Bowl to his name? Would Belichick have been a hot enough coaching candidate to be picked by the Browns? If not, and if Parcells still retires, does Belichick take over the Giants instead, thus committing the name of Ray Handley to well-deserved obscurity? If so, does he create his legend in New Jersey instead of New England?

Thoughts?
 
Well, first, no way are the Bills winning three Super Bowls during that span. Super Bowl XXV was close. None of the others were, and frankly, the ‘91 Redskins are one of the greatest teams in NFL history and the ‘92 and ‘93 Cowboys not far behind.

Belichick will be fine. Even in a loss it’s likely he would have held the Bills under their season scoring average, and his defenses were outside the top ten in scoring only once. I think he still would have been picked by the Browns.

Parcells is more interesting. He might not have resigned after a loss, and if he does resign I doubt he’ll stay retired for long. So his next team might not be the Patriots at all. Though I’d need to go digging to see who has a vacancy in ‘91 or ‘92.
 
What if the Bills had won Super Bowl XXV?
I think they might have won another but that it and remember oilers meltdown might not have happened but i think they could win 2 of 4 and being a good era for Buffalo fans.

Bellichick might get the loss as educational and might get to cleveland and model is still an ass...i think with the humble pie he would have stayed on the Jets.

Though I’d need to go digging to see who has a vacancy in ‘91 or ‘92.
He might have take Packers job... A disaster as he might have vetoed favre trade...
 
Without digging, Hornet, I know the Steelers had to replace Chuck Noll after '91, and I also know that Parcells was never seriously considered for the job, probably because he was too set in his ways. I can put together a list a little later of jobs that were open in '91 and '92 if you'd like.

I do remember that he almost took the Tampa job before the '92 season, but backed out at the last second. It almost ruined his career, as he was vilified in a similar way to Josh McDaniels after he turned down the Colts a few months back.
 
Without digging, Hornet, I know the Steelers had to replace Chuck Noll after '91, and I also know that Parcells was never seriously considered for the job, probably because he was too set in his ways. I can put together a list a little later of jobs that were open in '91 and '92 if you'd like.

I do remember that he almost took the Tampa job before the '92 season, but backed out at the last second. It almost ruined his career, as he was vilified in a similar way to Josh McDaniels after he turned down the Colts a few months back.
So Tampa or Packers for Parcell? i doubt steleers as the rooney like long term coaches...
 
They also, to borrow Parcells' phrase, want to shop for the groceries and have the coach stick to doing the cooking. Given how mediocre Parcells was as a GM and how much success the Steelers have had since the merger, that seems like a wise course.
 
What if the Bills had won Super Bowl XXV?

The show hypothesizes that they would have won as many as three Super Bowls in their four-year run, the only exception being XXVII. I don't know about that; there are too many other factors at play that are completely unknown. What fascinates me more is what might have happened to the legacies of Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. How would Parcells be perceived with just one Super Bowl to his name? Would Belichick have been a hot enough coaching candidate to be picked by the Browns? If not, and if Parcells still retires, does Belichick take over the Giants instead, thus committing the name of Ray Handley to well-deserved obscurity? If so, does he create his legend in New Jersey instead of New England?

Thoughts?

Giant GM George Young hated Belichick, so there was no way he was going to promote him.

As for the Browns, he probably would have gotten their job, anyway. I think they interviewed him in 1989 when they wanted to replace Marty, but chose Bud Carson for some reason.
 
IIRC, Parcells had some health issues, which is a big reason he took a couple of years off and passed on the Packer job.

I am pretty sure Belichek has said that his failures in Cleveland were pretty essential for preparing him for the Patriot job. It's fair to say that any change to his path is not as positive.
 
Now that I covered what would have happened to Belichick, I want to get to what may have happened to the Bills.

Even with a SB XXV win in tow, I can still see them getting back in 91. They were the best team in the AFC that year.

And, with a more relaxed demeanor, I actually think they would have had a good shot at beating the Redskins. A lot of people put the 91 Skins on a list of the all-time greats, but I don't buy it.

The next two years, though, I can see Houston playing Dallas. That would have increased the chances of the Oilers staying in Houston (although it still may not have been a lock), especially because I see the Oilers winning one of those games. They had as much (if not more) talent than the Cowboys did.
 
Now that I covered what would have happened to Belichick, I want to get to what may have happened to the Bills.

Even with a SB XXV win in tow, I can still see them getting back in 91. They were the best team in the AFC that year.

And, with a more relaxed demeanor, I actually think they would have had a good shot at beating the Redskins. A lot of people put the 91 Skins on a list of the all-time greats, but I don't buy it.

The next two years, though, I can see Houston playing Dallas. That would have increased the chances of the Oilers staying in Houston (although it still may not have been a lock), especially because I see the Oilers winning one of those games. They had as much (if not more) talent than the Cowboys did.
I agree with the Bills getting to Super Bowl XXVI. I can agree with the Oilers making at least one Super Bowl between '92 and '93.

I can't agree with the Oilers beating the Cowboys either year. Maybe the Oilers were as talented as Dallas those years (I doubt it, personally), but if they were, the results simply were not comparable. Dallas was superior in scoring offense and scoring defense both years, and the '93 Cowboys built that on a tougher regular season slate, to boot. I suspect the coaching simply wasn't there for Houston, especially since OTL they had two of the NFL's biggest choke jobs under their belt. More to the point, both times Dallas played the Bills, they didn't just beat Buffalo: they flatly demolished them. XXVII was only saved from being the most lopsided Super Bowl of all time by Leon Lett being a fucking idiot.

And I'm going to second the request for more details on why you don't rank the '91 Redskins as one of the best teams of the Super Bowl era.
 
I agree with the Bills getting to Super Bowl XXVI. I can agree with the Oilers making at least one Super Bowl between '92 and '93.

I can't agree with the Oilers beating the Cowboys either year. Maybe the Oilers were as talented as Dallas those years (I doubt it, personally), but if they were, the results simply were not comparable. Dallas was superior in scoring offense and scoring defense both years, and the '93 Cowboys built that on a tougher regular season slate, to boot. I suspect the coaching simply wasn't there for Houston, especially since OTL they had two of the NFL's biggest choke jobs under their belt. More to the point, both times Dallas played the Bills, they didn't just beat Buffalo: they flatly demolished them. XXVII was only saved from being the most lopsided Super Bowl of all time by Leon Lett being a fucking idiot.

And I'm going to second the request for more details on why you don't rank the '91 Redskins as one of the best teams of the Super Bowl era.

I know the Cowboys demolished Buffalo, but the 92 and 93 Bills weren't as good as the teams that lost to the Giants and Redskins. Those teams were worn down mentally and physically by then (they only made the SB those years because the AFC was pathetic).

Watch the 30 for 30 doc Four Falls of Buffalo. In that documentary, the subject of Buffalo's halftime demeanor at SB 28 (when they were walking to the locker room) was discussed. The Bills didn't seem that excited, even though they were winning 13-6. The reason: The grind of the past four seasons was catching up to them, and they had nothing left in the second half.

As for the 1991 Redskins, they were a good team, but who did they beat in the NFC Playoffs? Atlanta (who was a one-hit wonder) and the Lions (who never won a playoff game again).
 
The Bills winning one Super Bowl is interesting to me, mostly because that means that Marino looks like probably the worst pick in the 1983 QB draft class, assuming of course that Elway still wins his ring. As for my Packers, the key thing is do you allow Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren to join up. I also am not sure that Reggie Bush signs with the Packers down the line, which would have huge ripples. Remember, as important as the Favre trade is, Reggie signing with the Packers made Green Bay an attractive place for free agents. If you take the 1996 Packers and make them worse, then that opens the gates in the NFC for the 49ers or Cowboys to still sneak in in the mid 90's.
 
I know the Cowboys demolished Buffalo, but the 92 and 93 Bills weren't as good as the teams that lost to the Giants and Redskins. Those teams were worn down mentally and physically by then (they only made the SB those years because the AFC was pathetic).

Watch the 30 for 30 doc Four Falls of Buffalo. In that documentary, the subject of Buffalo's halftime demeanor at SB 28 (when they were walking to the locker room) was discussed. The Bills didn't seem that excited, even though they were winning 13-6. The reason: The grind of the past four seasons was catching up to them, and they had nothing left in the second half.

As for the 1991 Redskins, they were a good team, but who did they beat in the NFC Playoffs? Atlanta (who was a one-hit wonder) and the Lions (who never won a playoff game again).
And if the AFC is so pathetic, what does that say about the Oilers, their lack of Super Bowl berths, and their odds of doing what Buffalo could not? Not to mention that doesn't refute my point that Dallas was statistically the better team both years.

Yes, the '91 Redskins beat (read: dismantled) two mediocre teams in the playoffs, but saying they were a "good" team in the regular season is understating things pretty dramatically. Pro-Football-Reference.com has a nifty stat called Expected Win-Loss, which uses a team's points scored and points allowed to show what a team's win-loss record "should" have been. The '91 Redskins earned a score in that category good to tie for fifth among Super Bowl winners, tied with the '99 Rams and '96 Packers.
 
And if the AFC is so pathetic, what does that say about the Oilers, their lack of Super Bowl berths, and their odds of doing what Buffalo could not? Not to mention that doesn't refute my point that Dallas was statistically the better team both years.

Yes, the '91 Redskins beat (read: dismantled) two mediocre teams in the playoffs, but saying they were a "good" team in the regular season is understating things pretty dramatically. Pro-Football-Reference.com has a nifty stat called Expected Win-Loss, which uses a team's points scored and points allowed to show what a team's win-loss record "should" have been. The '91 Redskins earned a score in that category good to tie for fifth among Super Bowl winners, tied with the '99 Rams and '96 Packers.

The Cowboys would have had a hard time with the Oilers in 1993 if they made it that far. Buddy Ryan said that they were the most talented defense he had. They were fourth in points allowed, they had 52 QB sacks, and they intercepted 26 passes. Dallas had a high-ranked D in 92, but the 90's Cowboy SB winners never had as much talent on D as the 93 Oiler defense.

And, while the 91 Skins look pretty in almost every statistical category, the only Pro Bowler that went on to make another one in the future was Darrell Green (in 1996 and 97). 1991 was the last time that a lot of their players put up great stats. That was a team that benefited from the fall of the Giants, an injured Randall in Philly, a sort-of off year for the 49ers, and the not quite ready for prime time Cowboys.
 
The Cowboys would have had a hard time with the Oilers in 1993 if they made it that far. Buddy Ryan said that they were the most talented defense he had. They were fourth in points allowed, they had 52 QB sacks, and they intercepted 26 passes. Dallas had a high-ranked D in 92, but the 90's Cowboy SB winners never had as much talent on D as the 93 Oiler defense.

And, while the 91 Skins look pretty in almost every statistical category, the only Pro Bowler that went on to make another one in the future was Darrell Green (in 1996 and 97). 1991 was the last time that a lot of their players put up great stats. That was a team that benefited from the fall of the Giants, an injured Randall in Philly, a sort-of off year for the 49ers, and the not quite ready for prime time Cowboys.
Dallas still had a better scoring D. And when they got shredded in September by 30+ points, it was against the Bills rather than the fucking Saints. And finally, Dallas absolutely had the better offense. Would it be closer than the matchup against the Bills was? Sure. But I still see Dallas taking that matchup best out of three.

Oh, I’m not arguing that the ‘91 Redskins were sustainable. They were that good because of a lot of old players (five of their seven Pro Bowlers were 29 or older, so no wonder that was the last time their stars put up great stats) and Mark Rypien having one hell of an outlier year. But them being a one-off doesn’t diminish that one year, and their strength of schedule was not as bad as you make it out to be.
 
Interesting discussion, everyone.

What about my Steelers' chances in '92? If they could have gotten past the Bills, what chance would they have had against the NFC? That was the year Barry Foster ran for almost 1700 yards, and the Blitzburgh defense was young and opportunistic. The only thing that could have held them back was Neil O'Donnell, who wasn't in the same class as the likes of Aikman, Young, or a healthy Randall Cunningham. (The only other year during the Bills' reign that they made the playoffs was '93, where they barely squeaked in as a wild card and fell victim to the last postseason dose of Montana Magic in the Wild Card Game against the Chiefs.)
 
Interesting discussion, everyone.

What about my Steelers' chances in '92? If they could have gotten past the Bills, what chance would they have had against the NFC? That was the year Barry Foster ran for almost 1700 yards, and the Blitzburgh defense was young and opportunistic. The only thing that could have held them back was Neil O'Donnell, who wasn't in the same class as the likes of Aikman, Young, or a healthy Randall Cunningham. (The only other year during the Bills' reign that they made the playoffs was '93, where they barely squeaked in as a wild card and fell victim to the last postseason dose of Montana Magic in the Wild Card Game against the Chiefs.)
The Steelers defense/Cowboys offense matchup is juicy, but I doubt Neil O'Donnell and the offense would fare any better than they did in '95 against the Cowboys. Especially since Neil O'Donnell was better in '95 than he was in '92. Scary thought, that.
 
Dallas still had a better scoring D. And when they got shredded in September by 30+ points, it was against the Bills rather than the fucking Saints. And finally, Dallas absolutely had the better offense. Would it be closer than the matchup against the Bills was? Sure. But I still see Dallas taking that matchup best out of three.

Oh, I’m not arguing that the ‘91 Redskins were sustainable. They were that good because of a lot of old players (five of their seven Pro Bowlers were 29 or older, so no wonder that was the last time their stars put up great stats) and Mark Rypien having one hell of an outlier year. But them being a one-off doesn’t diminish that one year, and their strength of schedule was not as bad as you make it out to be.

In 1993, Dallas lost to the Redskins by 30+ points (in the Week 1 MNF opener). A Skin team that was getting ready to fall off a cliff. They only lost to Buffalo by three points.

And, I didn't say that the 91 Skins had a weak schedule (they played eight games against teams that finished above .500). I just said that the NFC wasn't a juggernaut that year.
 
Top