From: v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:07:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov16.065747.7786@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes...
>In article <26485@optima.cs.arizona.edu> curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson) writes:
>>Show me the many others over the past 8 years.  Let's look at the
>>NFC championship games (from memory so my facts may be off, here's your cue
>>Ed)
>>
>>Clear blowouts: `84 49ers, `85 Bears, `86 Giants, `89 49ers, `91 Redskins
>>Close Games: `87 Redskins, `90 Giants
>>Not sure: `88 49ers
>OK, let's look at the past 8 years
>               NFC Championship                   Super Bowl
>1984          49ers 23 Bears 0               49ers 38 Dolphins 16
>1985          Bears 24 Rams 0                Bears 46 Patriots 10
>1986          Giants 17 Redskins 0           Giants 39 Broncos 20
>1987          Redskins 17 Vikings 10         Redskins 42 Broncos 10
>1988          49ers 28 Bears 3               49ers 20 Bengals 16
>1989          49ers 30 Rams 3                49ers 55 Broncos 10
>1990          Giants 15 49ers 13             Giants 20 Bills 19
>1991          Redskins 41 Lions 10           Redskins 37 Bills 24
> 
>In my opinion, these are the NFC playoff losers better than the AFC champs
>(i.e. that can beat the AFC champs at a neutral site):
> 
>84: --
>85: Giants 
>86: Redskins, 49ers
>87: Vikings, Saints, 49ers
>88: Vikings
>89: Rams, Giants
>90: 49ers
>91: --

This is pure conjecture on your part.

>>I count two, maybe 3 non-blowout NFC championship games going back to '84, 
>>and surprise, surprise, two close SuperBowl games (`88 and `90).  
>But that's telling us nothing. A 27-point blowout on the road is different
>from a 45-point rout at a neutral site.

Really?  And how, praytell?  Again, this is only your opinion.

>In 1989, the Rams lost to the 49ers by 27 on the road, the Broncos lost 
>at a neutral site by 45, the Giants lost to the Rams in OT. Both the Giants 
>(12-4) and the Rams (11-5) had no worst record than the Broncos (11-5). All 
>these told me that they could have beaten the Broncos at New Orleans too. 
>Could the Browns or the Bills have beaten the 49ers?

I guess we'll never know, will we?

Again, comparing two teams in such a way is suspect at best.

>In 1987, the Redskins were supposed to be the 3rd best team in the conference
>(#3 seed, tied for 3rd best record behind the Saints and the 49ers). They
>demolished the Broncos. Can you imagine the Broncos beating the 49ers
>or the Saints at Jack Murphy Stadium? or can you imagine the 3rd best AFC
>team (Colts) beating the NFC champs? 

In 1987, the Redkins were supposed to be the 3rd best team in the conference
(#3 seed, tied for 3rd best record behind the Saints and the 49ers). Can you
imagine the Redskins beating the 49ers or the Saints on the road? 

Well, apparently, the Redskins could, because they did it.  What you are
saying is that the Broncos had no shot because the Niners and Saints were
"better" teams, yet the very NFC playoffs that year prove you wrong, since
the Saints and Niners were knocked off by supposedly "inferior" teams.  Thus,
to say the Broncos couldn't have beaten the Saints or Niners is completely
fallible reasoning.

>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com

					---Chet Zeshonski
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro