Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:17 am
The 94 Steelers were better. The 1997 team shouldn't have even made the playoffs. They had a few games they should have lost, like Washington, @Baltimore, @Arizona, and @NE. Den and KC were the two best teams in the AFC that year, and that was the defacto AFC Title Game.
Oh please.
97 KC was a fraud. How that team went 13-3 with the 4th best roster in their own division is beyond me. OAK/SEA had better players yet the Chiefs got by on Marty smoke and mirrors luck.
Horrible running game, Grbac and Gannon, only 1 WR worth a damn (washed up Andre Rison)
KC was the weakest of the 6 AFC playoff teams. I’d argue the 9-7 Jets were a better team that year.
Kansas City wouldn’t have sniffed the 97 playoffs in the NFC
The Chiefs ranked 3rd in rushing attempts, and 5th in rushing yards in 1997. In what universe is that "horrible"? Yes, it doesn't measure efficiency, but their 4.1 YPC ranked 12th of 30 teams - not elite, but far from horrible.
They destroyed San Francisco, the NFC's #1 seed 44-9. I think they could have easily made the playoffs in the NFC.
97 KC was a fraud. How that team went 13-3 with the 4th best roster in their own division is beyond me. OAK/SEA had better players yet the Chiefs got by on Marty smoke and mirrors luck.
Horrible running game, Grbac and Gannon, only 1 WR worth a damn (washed up Andre Rison)
KC was the weakest of the 6 AFC playoff teams. I’d argue the 9-7 Jets were a better team that year.
Kansas City wouldn’t have sniffed the 97 playoffs in the NFC
Grbac wasn't a great QB. Honestly, they should have tried to do a better job of developing 1992 2nd rd. QB Matt Blundin than bringing in more vets from SF after Montana.
However, the bigger fraud was the 1995 Chiefs. Rison may (or may not) have been washed up, but he was better than the WR's on the 95 Chiefs. Also, they didn't have Gonzo at TE. That was the luckiest team ever. It seemed like they needed a miracle to win every week.
97 KC was a fraud. How that team went 13-3 with the 4th best roster in their own division is beyond me. OAK/SEA had better players yet the Chiefs got by on Marty smoke and mirrors luck.
Horrible running game, Grbac and Gannon, only 1 WR worth a damn (washed up Andre Rison)
KC was the weakest of the 6 AFC playoff teams. I’d argue the 9-7 Jets were a better team that year.
Kansas City wouldn’t have sniffed the 97 playoffs in the NFC
Grbac wasn't a great QB. Honestly, they should have tried to do a better job of developing 1992 2nd rd. QB Matt Blundin than bringing in more vets from SF after Montana.
However, the bigger fraud was the 1995 Chiefs. Rison may (or may not) have been washed up, but he was better than the WR's on the 95 Chiefs. Also, they didn't have Gonzo at TE. That was the luckiest team ever. It seemed like they needed a miracle to win every week.
The 1995 Colts were even luckier. They were 2 huge comebacks and a pick 6 before halftime from 6-10.
The 1995 Colts were even luckier. They were 2 huge comebacks and a pick 6 before halftime from 6-10.
Honestly, they both were. However, that was the era where the more talented AFC teams (Denver, Raiders, Houston in 91-93) would always underachieve, and it would open the door for teams like this and the 94 Chargers.
The 1995 Colts were even luckier. They were 2 huge comebacks and a pick 6 before halftime from 6-10.
Honestly, they both were. However, that was the era where the more talented AFC teams (Denver, Raiders, Houston in 91-93) would always underachieve, and it would open the door for teams like this and the 94 Chargers.
91 Denver was not more talented than the Bills. Heck I could argue the 8-8 Jets had a better roster that year
91 Denver was not more talented than the Bills. Heck I could argue the 8-8 Jets had a better roster that year
Who said that they were? Although, the 90-93 Bills weren't as good as you think.
Kelly and Thurman were great, but their receivers were overrated, they didn't have great TE's, and their O-line was better at run blocking than pass blocking.
Also, they had a below-average defense in those years.