Simms was a great QB, but struggled with injuries many times during his career. We all saw the beating Hoss took in that game. No way Simms doesn’t come out of that game at some point.
And it’s not as simple as “ok, Hoss would then come in and win the game.” Hoss built momentum for weeks prior to that SB with some huge victories. If he goes in there cold in SB 25 after Simms presumably exits with an injury I don’t think the Giants win it.
But the D game plan won that Super Bowl. They would have won with whomever was QB. Not taking anything away from the offense. OJ kicked ass. But the D was the key to that win.
Football God's gave the Giants exactly what they needed in 1990, and it was Hoss' ability to extend plays and make the defense think. And as a result of 1990, I didn't look back at 1988 and 1989 as much anymore.
Football God's gave the Giants exactly what they needed in 1990, and it was Hoss' ability to extend plays.
But Simms was better at executing the play as it was designed with no need to extend it (or leave the pocket prematurely). It's not as if the OL sucked or the running game sucked making a more mobile QB necessary. Just the opposite in fact.
Obviously given the butterfly effect who knows if the Giants win with Phil. But Phil was the better QB of the two (is anyone arguing otherwise?) so if they played that game 10 times with Phil at QB and 10 times with Hoss at QB, they would likely win more times with Phil than with Hoss, but neither would go 10 for 10.
Simms might not have been it to the SB as Hoss's mobility was the key to getting there in a game or two. However, the QB in the SB doesn't feel relevant to me as the defensive gameplan won that game for them.
I very much remember the last drive. The Giants were selling out again the pass the whole game because it countered the Bills' no-huddle aerial attack.
I seem to remember Thurman Thomas was given the ball twice on their last drive. Once for over 20 yards and then another for around 10 yards (if memory serves). He was gaining more yards than the Bills passing attack (any other Bills' player). However, the 2-minute offense was supposed to be the Bills' specialty. Hell that was their whole offense. Had they kept handing the ball off to Thomas, they probably would have scored a TD or at least a much closer FG shot for Norwood.
This is a key point. Simms was indeed having his best, most efficient year. He only had 4 INTs through 14 games. I think he would have been squarely in the MVP discussion, too, if he doesn't miss the last 2.5 games.
RE: Hoss' mobility that key to us winning the Super Bowl?
Football God's gave the Giants exactly what they needed in 1990, and it was Hoss' ability to extend plays.
But Simms was better at executing the play as it was designed with no need to extend it (or leave the pocket prematurely). It's not as if the OL sucked or the running game sucked making a more mobile QB necessary. Just the opposite in fact.
Obviously given the butterfly effect who knows if the Giants win with Phil. But Phil was the better QB of the two (is anyone arguing otherwise?) so if they played that game 10 times with Phil at QB and 10 times with Hoss at QB, they would likely win more times with Phil than with Hoss, but neither would go 10 for 10.
SF and Buf had Simms' number that season, just being unable to avoid their pass rush or having Lott back there watching Simms' eyes gave them a big edge, and extending the play was a change up versus both teams that season. Advantage : Hoss in my book.
The Giant were rolling under Simms. The problems came when he got hurt, we had to minimize the offense down to things Hoss could do. We became a team that won by ball possession and defense.
And the only answer I come up with is, who knows? It can't be answered.
For all we know we don't even get out of the playoffs. OR for all we know we coast straight through the Super Bowl and dominate all the way through. Bounce of the ball here, bounce of the ball there, you just don't know what would have happened.
It simply can't be answered. All I know is I loved Phil Simms and my first handle on BBI was PhilSimms1986. But I'm happy it was Hoss, simply because I KNOW in that scenario the Giants WON.
Just as Bill Belichick painted masterpiece game plans for SB XXV and the NFCC, there’s a good chance Erhardt would have done the same. He worked within Hoss’s limitations, emphasizing his strengths, and would have done the same with Simms - especially with everything on the line. The regular season losses to SFO and BUF are useful data points, but they are hardly determinative.
By the way, if Simms doesn’t get hurt, that changes other things too. Maybe Rodney Hampton doesn’t break his leg. Who knows?
The Giants won in the playoffs primarily because of defense and running game. Simms’ better arm and accuracy and Hoss’ better mobility would have netted out.
....if you remember, games were getting down by 330pm for 1pm starts LOL
But something happened later in the season. They became predictable - and teams were starting to catch on. And Simms was an immobile QB in the middle of it all.
I don't think we beat San Fran with Simms that year, and certainly not Buffalo.
Hoss was the wildcard that game the team a new look and forced the staff to re-evaluate play calling IMO.
Simms was my all time fav player - but you could see the team in a rut by the tail end of the season. They needed a shot of adrenalin - meaning Jeff Hostetler.
RE: I think the Giant offense was in a rut by the time Simms
went down and likely they don't win it all in my view if he stays in the saddle.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
RE: The Giants were pounding the football ALL season...
....if you remember, games were getting down by 330pm for 1pm starts LOL
But something happened later in the season. They became predictable - and teams were starting to catch on. And Simms was an immobile QB in the middle of it all.
I don't think we beat San Fran with Simms that year, and certainly not Buffalo.
Hoss was the wildcard that game the team a new look and forced the staff to re-evaluate play calling IMO.
Simms was my all time fav player - but you could see the team in a rut by the tail end of the season. They needed a shot of adrenalin - meaning Jeff Hostetler.
Exactly. Remember, predictors were picking the Bears over the Giants in the divisional round because the offense was doing zero and they finished losing what, 3 out of 4? I think Berman picked Bears 12-10, something silly like that because the offense was DOA. We'll never for certain either way. I think Simms could've beaten SF because the rivalry was so close, but I think BUF's pass rush the way it played late in that season would've been a problem.
RE: RE: I think the Giant offense was in a rut by the time Simms
went down and likely they don't win it all in my view if he stays in the saddle.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
No one mentioning offensive juggernaut.
The point was Simms-led offense had nearly stopped/scoring moving against some of the better teams (Phil, SF, Buff). After Hoss got more comfortable with increased snaps, he was extending drives with arm and legs where Simms couldn't. Not scoring tons but enough to keep winning.
RE: RE: RE: I think the Giant offense was in a rut by the time Simms
went down and likely they don't win it all in my view if he stays in the saddle.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
No one mentioning offensive juggernaut.
The point was Simms-led offense had nearly stopped/scoring moving against some of the better teams (Phil, SF, Buff). After Hoss got more comfortable with increased snaps, he was extending drives with arm and legs where Simms couldn't. Not scoring tons but enough to keep winning.
Yeah, do we have a total of 18 minutes drive time (to close out the first half and opening of the 3rd quarter) with Simms at the helm, given the limited chance of him extending plays with his legs and avoiding the fierce Bills’ rush? I doubt it, imo
Simms wouldn't have succeeded against that 49er defense, which really was all-time great. We had to pull out all the stops (including a fake punt) to score 15 on them. (To be fair, we would have scored more if Carthon didn't drop a gimme TD pass). Even if Simms survived that pass rush, I can't see him doing much better than what he did against them in the regular season. Not solely Simms' fault: as others have noted, our O-line was a good power O-line but not the greatest at pass protection. The added bit of unpredictability with Hoss's mobility loosened things up just enough.
Stats and point-wise, our offense wasn't extraordinary with Hoss (and indeed, it wasn't good with him the following year), but much like Eli in 2007, he did what he had to do to complement the defense and put the team in a position to win. Simms wasn't doing that just before he got hurt.
Our coaching staff was so good and we had a great D and the champion spirit. I wouldn't bet against it.
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
A great question for Giants fans and so much fun to ponder because, of course our team won the Supe. Lots of good points already covered. I tend to think yes, because Simms was the better QB and while his skill set didn’t include the scrambling he was having an amazing season and very much at the top of his game. And there was so much talent on the field and on the sidelines. It all comes down to the fucking hated Niners.
I know this, if Simms did play the entire season and if he did win his second Super Bowl he’s almost certainly in Canton. Simms was a great NFL QB.
Yes, the Giants were awful on both sides of the ball versus Philly.
Both teams brought their A games on defense when we lost to the 9ers 7-3. The league MVP that year was Montana and he really did nothing in that game either.
And when we lost to the Bills in week 14, the score was 14-10 when Simms got hurt in the first half. The weather was miserable that day with the rain.
So, I'll give you the Philly game, but there is context to consider in the 9er and Bills game.
I love the '90 team. It's my favorite NYG team every. But let's not act like Hoss was Steve Young coming off the bench. He was a very capable, competent starter. It seems unfair to downplay what Simms was still bringing to the table. He was having a marvelous year before the injury...
Our coaching staff was so good and we had a great D and the champion spirit. I wouldn't bet against it.
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
HOF Steve Young was the backup and had to come in because Marshall obliterated Montana.
Our coaching staff was so good and we had a great D and the champion spirit. I wouldn't bet against it.
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
HOF Steve Young was the backup and had to come in because Marshall obliterated Montana.
Yup. Pat Summerall. Something like, "Word from the sideline is everything hurts."
gained something with Hoss as qb, we gained something else with Simms. All in all, I think Simms was the better qb, so I think we still would have won with him.
Hostetler was our Nick Foles during that playoff run
Because if not, I don't get why you would like Hostetler's chances better than Simms's chances. Was Hostetler's mobility the only thing that separated him from Simms? Because if you believe that than I guess that means you think Hostetler is the better QB and that should be your argument, not his mobility. And if you don't believe that, then it should occur to you that the only reason his mobility made such a difference is because he wasn't as good as Phil at making throws from the pocket. It wasn't like the Giants had a shitty OL or no running game.
p.s.--Does anybody remember what Parcells said about Hostetler at the time? "I don't want to be known as a guy who coaches broken plays" or something like that.
with his feet...plays that Simms couldn't have accomplished. Simms was the better passer but at least Hoss wasn't being careless in that facet and played to how the coaches wanted him to.
Maybe Simms gets it done too but, as noted above, that Giant offense was fading a bit as the season wore on and too predictable. Hoss was an interesting change of pace that kept the offense from dying on the vine as they navigated thru the playoffs.
Love the difference of opinions. It feels like it is pretty damn close to 50-50 with what people think. I'm in the camp that we probably don't win it all if Simms stays healthy just because Hoss' running game added a much needed component to our offense. But as others said, who knows?
Offense had grown stale and down the stretch he had huge trouble beating the blitz or reacting to pressure. Hoss's mobility (and mistake-free performances) carried the day.
Love the difference of opinions. It feels like it is pretty damn close to 50-50 with what people think. I'm in the camp that we probably don't win it all if Simms stays healthy just because Hoss' running game added a much needed component to our offense.
And so that's the only difference between Hoss and Simms? Hoss was more mobile, but other than that, they were the same QB according to you?
Love the difference of opinions. It feels like it is pretty damn close to 50-50 with what people think.
Here I was thinking there wasn't a single Giants fan that would say Hostetler was better than Simms and it turns out they are split 50-50 on the question. Amazing! Awhile back there was a question about Simms vs Eli, but I guess we should also ask who Giants fan prefer, Hostetler or Eli. I wonder if as many fans pick Hostetler over Eli as picked Simms over Eli. I was one of those who preferred Simms to Eli, but I wouldn't even thinking of picking Hoss over Eli. But that's just me. And it's nothing against Hoss, he wasn't a bad QB, I just don't see him as being anywhere close to Simms or Eli.
And it’s not as simple as “ok, Hoss would then come in and win the game.” Hoss built momentum for weeks prior to that SB with some huge victories. If he goes in there cold in SB 25 after Simms presumably exits with an injury I don’t think the Giants win it.
Obviously given the butterfly effect who knows if the Giants win with Phil. But Phil was the better QB of the two (is anyone arguing otherwise?) so if they played that game 10 times with Phil at QB and 10 times with Hoss at QB, they would likely win more times with Phil than with Hoss, but neither would go 10 for 10.
I very much remember the last drive. The Giants were selling out again the pass the whole game because it countered the Bills' no-huddle aerial attack.
I seem to remember Thurman Thomas was given the ball twice on their last drive. Once for over 20 yards and then another for around 10 yards (if memory serves). He was gaining more yards than the Bills passing attack (any other Bills' player). However, the 2-minute offense was supposed to be the Bills' specialty. Hell that was their whole offense. Had they kept handing the ball off to Thomas, they probably would have scored a TD or at least a much closer FG shot for Norwood.
Simms was having a great year until,he got hurt.
This is a key point. Simms was indeed having his best, most efficient year. He only had 4 INTs through 14 games. I think he would have been squarely in the MVP discussion, too, if he doesn't miss the last 2.5 games.
Correct!!!
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Quote:
Football God's gave the Giants exactly what they needed in 1990, and it was Hoss' ability to extend plays.
But Simms was better at executing the play as it was designed with no need to extend it (or leave the pocket prematurely). It's not as if the OL sucked or the running game sucked making a more mobile QB necessary. Just the opposite in fact.
Obviously given the butterfly effect who knows if the Giants win with Phil. But Phil was the better QB of the two (is anyone arguing otherwise?) so if they played that game 10 times with Phil at QB and 10 times with Hoss at QB, they would likely win more times with Phil than with Hoss, but neither would go 10 for 10.
SF and Buf had Simms' number that season, just being unable to avoid their pass rush or having Lott back there watching Simms' eyes gave them a big edge, and extending the play was a change up versus both teams that season. Advantage : Hoss in my book.
this. Simms was MUCH better passer and QB than Hostetler
For all we know we don't even get out of the playoffs. OR for all we know we coast straight through the Super Bowl and dominate all the way through. Bounce of the ball here, bounce of the ball there, you just don't know what would have happened.
It simply can't be answered. All I know is I loved Phil Simms and my first handle on BBI was PhilSimms1986. But I'm happy it was Hoss, simply because I KNOW in that scenario the Giants WON.
By the way, if Simms doesn’t get hurt, that changes other things too. Maybe Rodney Hampton doesn’t break his leg. Who knows?
But something happened later in the season. They became predictable - and teams were starting to catch on. And Simms was an immobile QB in the middle of it all.
I don't think we beat San Fran with Simms that year, and certainly not Buffalo.
Hoss was the wildcard that game the team a new look and forced the staff to re-evaluate play calling IMO.
Simms was my all time fav player - but you could see the team in a rut by the tail end of the season. They needed a shot of adrenalin - meaning Jeff Hostetler.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
But something happened later in the season. They became predictable - and teams were starting to catch on. And Simms was an immobile QB in the middle of it all.
I don't think we beat San Fran with Simms that year, and certainly not Buffalo.
Hoss was the wildcard that game the team a new look and forced the staff to re-evaluate play calling IMO.
Simms was my all time fav player - but you could see the team in a rut by the tail end of the season. They needed a shot of adrenalin - meaning Jeff Hostetler.
Exactly. Remember, predictors were picking the Bears over the Giants in the divisional round because the offense was doing zero and they finished losing what, 3 out of 4? I think Berman picked Bears 12-10, something silly like that because the offense was DOA. We'll never for certain either way. I think Simms could've beaten SF because the rivalry was so close, but I think BUF's pass rush the way it played late in that season would've been a problem.
Quote:
went down and likely they don't win it all in my view if he stays in the saddle.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
No one mentioning offensive juggernaut.
The point was Simms-led offense had nearly stopped/scoring moving against some of the better teams (Phil, SF, Buff). After Hoss got more comfortable with increased snaps, he was extending drives with arm and legs where Simms couldn't. Not scoring tons but enough to keep winning.
Quote:
In comment 15707256 NYGgolfer said:
Quote:
went down and likely they don't win it all in my view if he stays in the saddle.
Hoss' legs were just enough the newly added dimension to keep drives going, frustrate some defenses and get the team to the promised land.
Hoss relieved Simms in week 14 when Simms broke his foot and the offense scored 3 more points against Buffalo.
The next week, we scored 24 against the hideous Cards and closed the season against the even more hideous Pats by scoring a whopping 13 points.
So, the team didn't become this offensive juggernaut when Hoss took over.
Erhardt and Parcells played it much closer to the vest and relied on the running game as the centerpiece of the offense. Hoss only broke 200 yards once in his 5 starts for the remainder of that season.
No one mentioning offensive juggernaut.
The point was Simms-led offense had nearly stopped/scoring moving against some of the better teams (Phil, SF, Buff). After Hoss got more comfortable with increased snaps, he was extending drives with arm and legs where Simms couldn't. Not scoring tons but enough to keep winning.
Yeah, do we have a total of 18 minutes drive time (to close out the first half and opening of the 3rd quarter) with Simms at the helm, given the limited chance of him extending plays with his legs and avoiding the fierce Bills’ rush? I doubt it, imo
Stats and point-wise, our offense wasn't extraordinary with Hoss (and indeed, it wasn't good with him the following year), but much like Eli in 2007, he did what he had to do to complement the defense and put the team in a position to win. Simms wasn't doing that just before he got hurt.
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
I know this, if Simms did play the entire season and if he did win his second Super Bowl he’s almost certainly in Canton. Simms was a great NFL QB.
Both teams brought their A games on defense when we lost to the 9ers 7-3. The league MVP that year was Montana and he really did nothing in that game either.
And when we lost to the Bills in week 14, the score was 14-10 when Simms got hurt in the first half. The weather was miserable that day with the rain.
So, I'll give you the Philly game, but there is context to consider in the 9er and Bills game.
I love the '90 team. It's my favorite NYG team every. But let's not act like Hoss was Steve Young coming off the bench. He was a very capable, competent starter. It seems unfair to downplay what Simms was still bringing to the table. He was having a marvelous year before the injury...
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
HOF Steve Young was the backup and had to come in because Marshall obliterated Montana.
Quote:
Our coaching staff was so good and we had a great D and the champion spirit. I wouldn't bet against it.
I remember Parcells talking about this game and how he said there were 5 HOF's on the field. I wonder who he thought they were. LT is the one definite. For the Niner's Rice, Montana, and Lott. Number 5 could be several options but maybe Haley.
Then you had Bavaro, Banks (who was incredible that year)and a bunch of other really good players.
Just a incredible effort by our team and staff on the road.
HOF Steve Young was the backup and had to come in because Marshall obliterated Montana.
Yup. Pat Summerall. Something like, "Word from the sideline is everything hurts."
Quote:
If he was the QB they would have scored more than 2 TDs.
this. Simms was MUCH better passer and QB than Hostetler
He was, but like others said, the play extending from Hostetler was key. That was the difference in the game outside of the fake punt and fumble.
But just the vibe of the game, it doesn't seem like the Giants would be inept with Simms.
And whomever on here keeps claiming the Niners were 8 point favorites makes me laugh.
If Vegas truly had them as 8 point favorites, they surely have come a long way in setting odds.
I don't think Cavanaugh playing the entire game would've been enough for an 8 point cover.
And the simple reason is this:
Low scoring games favored the Giants, whereas higher scoring games favored the Niners.
Giants defense was better in '90 than '89, even if their offense might've dropped a bit.
49er defense was better in '90, but not so much better than '89, whereas offense was noticeably worse in '90.
And whomever on here keeps claiming the Niners were 8 point favorites makes me laugh.
If Vegas truly had them as 8 point favorites, they surely have come a long way in setting odds.
9ers were favored by 8.
Over/Under was 37.
See the attached and scroll down to see "Game Info".
Spread - ( New Window )
p.s.--Does anybody remember what Parcells said about Hostetler at the time? "I don't want to be known as a guy who coaches broken plays" or something like that.
Maybe Simms gets it done too but, as noted above, that Giant offense was fading a bit as the season wore on and too predictable. Hoss was an interesting change of pace that kept the offense from dying on the vine as they navigated thru the playoffs.
He was just enough as it turned out...
Quote:
And whomever on here keeps claiming the Niners were 8 point favorites makes me laugh.
If Vegas truly had them as 8 point favorites, they surely have come a long way in setting odds.
9ers were favored by 8.
Over/Under was 37.
See the attached and scroll down to see "Game Info". Spread - ( New Window )
Ok, I see it. Nice, thank you.
Now ask yourself, in 2022 would that spread be realistic?
Not even two months after that 7-3 MNF bloodbath, where does one come up with an 8 point spread?
To me, 8 points at least now is essentially giving the favored team at least a 90% chance of winning.
The sentiment had to be 50/50 for fans of both squads going into that game.