Who's more disappointing; The Bills of the 90's or the Eagles of the 2000's.

[allBthere]

#74 of the O-line cost them the game. If he was replaced by even a mediocre player w/ a desire to win, they would have.

[JBH3]

First, I absolutely hate this thread...

Second, my pick would be the Bills because to get to 3 straight Superbowls and lose all 3 is much worse than the NFC Championship games the Eagles lost.

Third, although the Eagles have come up short this decade I wouldn't trade in thier success.

For the entire 70's, & for much of the 80s this team was horrible.

Althought the Giants won a Superbowl this decade, and have come on strong the last 2 yrs. The Eagles have dominated the NFC East, AND the NFC for much of the 2000s and that I am proud of.

[JBH3]

Quote: Originally Posted by allBthere

#74 of the O-line cost them the game. If he was replaced by even a mediocre player w/ a desire to win, they would have.

#74? ... Winston Justice?

He didn't even play...I assume you're talking about Tra Thomas, and yes he missed some blocking assignments but our OTs (Thomas and Runyan) have been the linch-pen of our O-Line and a major part of Philly's success over the years.

Its unfortunate that Thomas had a bad game in what might be his last as an Eagle, but the man has been a dominant LT in this league for a while now.

[sycodmn]

The fact that people view the Bills as 'embarrassing' is incredibly short sighted to me. Is losing 4 straight Super Bowls a good thing? No, of course not, but I'd damn sure rather have my team be there and lose than not make it.

[tmulk]

Name me 7 teams in the Superbowl Era better than the 91 Redskins. Name me 3 better than the 92-93 Cowboys. Losing to some of the greatest teams in NFL history is nothing to be embarassed about.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by sycodmn

The fact that people view the Bills as 'embarrassing' is incredibly short sighted to me. Is losing 4 straight Super Bowls a good thing? No, of course not, but I'd damn sure rather have my team be there and lose than not make it.

I don't even think it should be stated that way. They won 4 straight conference championships... the Eagles have won 1 conference championship and 4 (I think) division championships. Both are impressive. The Bills are more impressive.

[Kruza]

Quote: Originally Posted by tmulk

Name me 7 teams in the Superbowl Era better than the 91 Redskins. Name me 3 better than the 92-93 Cowboys. Losing to some of the greatest teams in NFL history is nothing to be embarassed about.

I will forever and ever and ever... and ever... despise the '91 Redskins.

Kruza

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Actually the Bills were favored heading into SB XXV. The vegas odds makers had them favored by 8. There were some Vegas books that had them favored by 12 or more.

OK, 3 of the Bills 4 defeats were to teams that were clearly superior.

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Anywho to answer the OP, this isn't even debatable. The Bills were an all around better team. The Eagles are more disappointing for the simple fact that they couldn't get out of the NFC Championship most of the time.

See, to me that makes the Bills more disappointing, not less. In Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith the Bills had three of the greatest players at their positions in the history of the sport. Can you name even a single current Eagle who can be considered in that class?