The Most Devastating Postseason Losses for all teams

[lcarus]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...edium=referral

Figured ours would be 1995 for sure, but it was runner-up.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Omega

Not with Bono, they weren't.

We would have been ****ed up by the Steelers, and if not them, definitely Dallas.

In fact, Dallas ****ed us up earlier that year.

You're looking at a 1995 team through a 2011 prism.

Sure, we can say now that a team with Bono wasn't winning shit, but it was a much different league back then and Bono had a solid year. Bono put up 3,000+ yards and a better than 2-1 TD/INT ratio. Hell, didn't he make the Pro Bowl that season? In relation to his peers, he was no worse than Joe Flacco of today and the defense he had was absolutely rabid. Combine that with the fact that there was no high-powered Patriots offense back then and yeah, the Chiefs easily could have, and in my mind should have won the SB that year.

Further, the Chiefs by the end of the year had become a far different team than the one that started the year. They truly believed they could beat anyone and that defense was otherwordly.

It's easy to say in hindsight that you knew the 1995 team wasn't winning anything, but that wasn't the belief at the time at all.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

95 team wouldnt have won anything regardless...

97 Perhaps.....but most likely would have lost to Favre.

03 team was like Saints this year....could score a ton, couldnt stop anyone, sat back and waited for a big turnover to stop anyone.


The most intriguing "what could have been" team to me was the 05 team that went 10-6 . Of course Gun's D's couldnt stop the Giants, Cowboys or Eagles, so we sat at home instead.

If Pat Surtain could have handled that sure pick six against Bledsoe, we would have won that game.

And don't forget the Buffalo debacle, either.....

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bowser

If Pat Surtain could have handled that sure pick six against Bledsoe, we would have won that game.

And don't forget the Buffalo debacle, either.....

Wasn't that also the the year that Larry Johnson ole'd Scott Fujita and it led to like a 10 point swing in a game we lost by a FG?

EDIT: Fuji was with Dallas at the time - **** you, Larry Johnson.

[Al Bundy]

1999 Buccaneers losing to the Rams in the NFC Championship was worse than that 79 game. We were better than those assholes.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by UCF Knight

1999 Buccaneers losing to the Rams in the NFC Championship was worse than that 79 game. We were better than those assholes.

Shaun King wasnt winning sh*t

[Baby Lee]

One coach HCed three of those losses.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You're looking at a 1995 team through a 2011 prism.

Sure, we can say now that a team with Bono wasn't winning shit, but it was a much different league back then and Bono had a solid year. Bono put up 3,000+ yards and a better than 2-1 TD/INT ratio. Hell, didn't he make the Pro Bowl that season? In relation to his peers, he was no worse than Joe Flacco of today and the defense he had was absolutely rabid. Combine that with the fact that there was no high-powered Patriots offense back then and yeah, the Chiefs easily could have, and in my mind should have won the SB that year.

Further, the Chiefs by the end of the year had become a far different team than the one that started the year. They truly believed they could beat anyone and that defense was otherwordly.

It's easy to say in hindsight that you knew the 1995 team wasn't winning anything, but that wasn't the belief at the time at all.

That's because it's easy to think you have a dominant team when you win as many games as we did that year.

Super Bowl winners in the 90s:

Phil Simms
Mark Rypien
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
Brett Favre
John Elway
Kurt Warner

Steve Bono wasn't even on Rypien's level.

We weren't winning shit with Bono, or the dogshit receivers we had on that team, and especially not against a team like the Cowboys.

That 95 team was a total fluke squad that lucked into about 3 or 4 extra wins.

[Inspector]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

1971 to the Dolphins has to be the most devasting...

Yep. I will never forget that one.

I was going to get to go to the super bowl that year if we had won. Still hurts.

No wonder I haven't liked fish in a long time.

[mikey23545]

Christmas Day 1971 blows the other games out of the water. People talking about other games are the little kids who think the world began the day they popped out of their mommy's puss.

If not for that game, the Chiefs would have probably been in 3 of the first 6 Super Bowls and won two of the three. Along with being the winningest team of the old AFL it would have cemented the early Chiefs as a true dynasty.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Omega

That 95 team was a total fluke squad that lucked into about 3 or 4 extra wins.

But did you believe that then...

The question isn't 'most inexcusable', but rather 'most devastating'. In 1995 where you really thinking "Eh, we aren't winning shit with Steve Bono". Say it if you want, but I'll call you a liar. This town had lost its damn mind and everyone knew this was our year after not quite getting over the hump so many times prior. In hindsight it wasn't the worst of the losses, but it was absolutely devastating in real-time.

For me, the only real contender to the crown here is the 1993 loss by the Montana-led Chiefs against the Bills. I thought the Bills were ready to get knocked off and after beating both the Steelers and, what appeared to be an absolute juggernaut Oilers team, I was dead certain we were due. We started off that 1st quarter moving the ball pretty well, only to stall both times. Didn't matter - all that proved was that we could move the ball when we needed to...

...then suddenly Joe Montana looked very very old all at once. And then he got concussed. Things looked so great and then in the span of maybe 20 minutes, the whole damn season just blew apart. All the excitement of Joe and Marcus, the dominance of Neil and Derrick...all of it just gone.

For pure devastation, the 1993 and 1995 squads dwarf anything that's come afterward.

[ClevelandBronco]

3. The Drive
2. Red Right 88
1. The Fumble

[Pioli Zombie]

Anyone who thinks the '95 Chiefs could have beaten Dallas is on Methadone.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

...then suddenly Joe Montana looked very very old all at once. And then he got concussed. Things looked so great and then in the span of maybe 20 minutes, the whole damn season just blew apart. All the excitement of Joe and Marcus, the dominance of Neil and Derrick...all of it just gone.

For pure devastation, the 1993 and 1995 squads dwarf anything that's come afterward.

I remember during the 94 season how Montana looked so old..and Bono would come in at relief and get everyone excited. Bono was actually a pretty good deep ball thrower. Just bad at everything else.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But did you believe that then...

The question isn't 'most inexcusable', but rather 'most devastating'. In 1995 where you really thinking "Eh, we aren't winning shit with Steve Bono". Say it if you want, but I'll call you a liar.

I was 14 years old. I thought the Chiefs were the best team in the world.

I had no objectivity. Now, I do. That team wasn't beating Dallas, and it's questionable whether they would have even gotten past Pittsburgh, because the next year the Steelers came to Arrowhead and held us to 7 points.

For pure devastation, the 1993 and 1995 squads dwarf anything that's come afterward.

The 1997 Chiefs were the 2nd best team of the 90s. They were the 1995 squad with a better QB and a Pro Bowl receiver + Gonzalez.

2003 Chiefs probably would have made Bono score 35 to win. Doubt that happens.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

I remember during the 94 season how Montana looked so old..and Bono would come in at relief and get everyone excited. Bono was actually a pretty good deep ball thrower. Just bad at everything else.

That's why I don't buy it when people try to claim they weren't crushed by the '95 loss because Bono wasn't going to win anyway.

In hindsight, sure. But in relief in '94 and as a starter in '95, Bono looked for all the world like a perfect fit for Marty's run-first, deep play-action passing style offense.

By 1997 I'd become calloused by defeat so it didn't sting as badly. The Chiefs broke me down pretty quickly.