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
I was talking about the 1993-95 Broncos, not the 91 version that should have been 8-8 despite a fifth-place schedule.
Also, those Bills teams weren't as great as people 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.
Last edited by 7DnBrnc53 on Thu Jul 25, 2024 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
At home
We all know KC was a terrible road team under the most overrated HC in NFL history
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.
At home
We all know KC was a terrible road team under the most overrated HC in NFL history
I presume you are referring to Marty Schottenheimer. Why is he the most overrated head coach in NFL history? And who is a head coach you think he should be considered about as good as?
The general consensus I see is that Marty is one of the best coaches that may never make the Hall of Fame.
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.
At home
We all know KC was a terrible road team under the most overrated HC in NFL history
1. Yes, KC went undefeated at home that year. And if they can beat Denver and SF at home, they could go undefeated at home, even if they were in the NFC. Considering that a 9-7 record was good enough to make the NFC playoffs in 1997, I'm pretty sure KC could scrounge up two road wins as an NFC team, and make the playoffs.
2. I assume by lack of a response to my points about the running game, you are admitting that your description of their running game as "horrible" was hyperbole.