Best Super Bowl Loser Ever
Posted by Chase Stuart on Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A year ago, I wrote that the 2007 Giants were arguably the worst Super Bowl Champion of all time, with the '70 Colts, '80 Raiders, '87 Redskins and '01 Patriots hot on their heels. That subgroup is, IMO, the bottom tier of Super Bowl winners.
Some comments requested a showing of the opposite -- the best Super Bowl losers ever. We all know the answer to this one: the 2007 Patriots, right? Well, maybe not. Let's take a look. For starters, let's take a look at the regular season record of each of the 42 Super Bowls losers.
nwe2007 16-0-0 1.000 rai1967 13-1-0 0.929 clt1968 13-1-0 0.929 was1983 14-2-0 0.875 mia1984 14-2-0 0.875 atl1998 14-2-0 0.875 ram2001 14-2-0 0.875 min1969 12-2-0 0.857 min1973 12-2-0 0.857 den1977 12-2-0 0.857 kan1966 11-2-1 0.821 min1976 11-2-1 0.821 buf1990 13-3-0 0.813 buf1991 13-3-0 0.813 gnb1997 13-3-0 0.813 oti1999 13-3-0 0.813 phi2004 13-3-0 0.813 sea2005 13-3-0 0.813 chi2006 13-3-0 0.813 was1972 11-3-0 0.786 mia1982 7-2-0 0.778 mia1971 10-3-1 0.750 dal1978 12-4-0 0.750 phi1980 12-4-0 0.750 cin1981 12-4-0 0.750 cin1988 12-4-0 0.750 buf1993 12-4-0 0.750 nyg2000 12-4-0 0.750 dal1970 10-4-0 0.714 min1974 10-4-0 0.714 dal1975 10-4-0 0.714 den1987 10-4-1 0.700 nwe1985 11-5-0 0.688 den1986 11-5-0 0.688 den1989 11-5-0 0.688 buf1992 11-5-0 0.688 sdg1994 11-5-0 0.688 pit1995 11-5-0 0.688 nwe1996 11-5-0 0.688 rai2002 11-5-0 0.688 car2003 11-5-0 0.688 ram1979 9-7-0 0.563
Ten of these teams won over 85% of their games. Let's not forget that we're dealing with some great teams here. They just weren't perfect.
Record isn't everything, though -- the next table shows each team’s regular season points scored, points allowed, points differential, and differential per game for each team.
nwe2007 589 274 315 19.7 clt1968 402 144 258 18.4 min1969 379 133 246 17.6 rai1967 468 233 235 16.8 ram2001 503 273 230 14.4 mia1984 513 298 215 13.4 was1983 541 332 209 13.1 kan1966 448 276 172 12.3 sea2005 452 271 181 11.3 dal1978 384 208 176 11.0 chi2006 427 255 172 10.8 buf1990 428 263 165 10.3 phi1980 384 222 162 10.1 mia1971 315 174 141 10.1 atl1998 442 289 153 9.6 min1976 305 176 129 9.2 min1973 296 168 128 9.1 rai2002 450 304 146 9.1 den1977 274 148 126 9.0 gnb1997 422 282 140 8.8 buf1991 458 318 140 8.8 den1989 362 226 136 8.5 was1972 336 218 118 8.4 min1974 310 195 115 8.2 phi2004 386 260 126 7.9 mia1982 198 131 67 7.4 cin1988 448 329 119 7.4 cin1981 421 304 117 7.3 nwe1996 418 313 105 6.6 buf1992 381 283 98 6.1 den1987 379 288 91 6.1 dal1975 350 268 82 5.9 dal1970 299 221 78 5.6 buf1993 329 242 87 5.4 nyg2000 328 246 82 5.1 pit1995 407 327 80 5.0 sdg1994 381 306 75 4.7 nwe1985 362 290 72 4.5 oti1999 392 324 68 4.3 den1986 378 327 51 3.2 car2003 325 304 21 1.3 ram1979 323 309 14 0.9
Not surprisingly, the '07 Pats rank at the top of this list, too. But three pre-merger teams aren't too far behind, along with three great offenses on modern teams. Like we did before, we should also look at Pythagorean record. The Pythagorean record is calculated by taking the points scored number raised to the 2.37th power, and dividing it by the sum of itself and the points allowed number raised to the 2.37th power. Explaining what the correct exponent should be is still on my to-do list, but 2.37 works for now.
Why use this? Points differential is biased towards great offense teams. A 10-0 victory may be more impressive than a 21-10 victory -- we might infer that the former victor had a lower chance of ever losing that game. Once we use Pythagorean record, guess what? The 2007 Patriots don't come out on top, for a change. The '69 Vikings and the '68 Colts had all time great defenses, and that was partially hidden when we used points differential.
min1969 0.923 clt1968 0.919 nwe2007 0.860 rai1967 0.839 den1977 0.811 dal1978 0.810 ram2001 0.810 mia1971 0.803 min1973 0.793 min1976 0.786 phi1980 0.786 mia1984 0.784 chi2006 0.772 sea2005 0.771 was1983 0.761 buf1990 0.760 kan1966 0.759 den1989 0.753 min1974 0.750 was1972 0.736 atl1998 0.732 mia1982 0.727 gnb1997 0.722 phi2004 0.718 rai2002 0.717 buf1991 0.704 cin1981 0.684 cin1988 0.675 buf1993 0.674 dal1970 0.672 buf1992 0.669 nwe1996 0.665 nyg2000 0.664 den1987 0.657 dal1975 0.653 nwe1985 0.628 sdg1994 0.627 pit1995 0.627 oti1999 0.611 den1986 0.585 car2003 0.539 ram1979 0.526
None of those measures adjust for strength of schedule, though. Unfortunately, because of the lack of inter-league play, we've only got SRS ratings from since the merger. Here’s how the thirty-eight runner-ups from 1970-2007 rank according to the SRS:
nwe2007 20.1 was1983 13.9 ram2001 13.4 den1977 11.3 dal1978 11.0 rai2002 10.6 mia1984 10.6 atl1998 10.0 phi1980 9.7 min1976 9.3 den1989 9.3 sea2005 9.1 buf1990 8.6 min1973 8.6 mia1982 8.0 chi2006 7.9 mia1971 7.7 gnb1997 7.7 dal1970 7.0 was1972 6.3 cin1988 6.1 min1974 6.1 nwe1985 5.8 phi2004 5.6 cin1981 5.5 den1986 5.2 nwe1996 5.1 buf1993 4.8 pit1995 4.6 den1987 4.4 buf1992 4.3 dal1975 4.1 sdg1994 3.6 buf1991 3.6 nyg2000 2.4 oti1999 1.0 ram1979 -0.6 car2003 -0.9
One last table. If this season has taught us anything, it's that the regular season isn't exactly a perfect predictor of the post-season. When you've got a nine win team in the Super Bowl, you might argue that we should really be focusing on playoff success when we look at teams. So how did our lovable losers do in the playoffs?
buf1990 3 57 19.0 clt1968 3 35 11.7 dal1978 3 31 10.3 mia1982 4 40 10.0 ram2001 3 30 10.0 was1972 3 29 9.7 dal1975 3 29 9.7 phi2004 3 27 9.0 nwe1996 3 25 8.3 car2003 4 33 8.3 nyg2000 3 24 8.0 cin1981 3 22 7.3 rai1967 2 14 7.0 gnb1997 3 20 6.7 sea2005 3 19 6.3 was1983 3 18 6.0 nwe2007 3 17 5.7 mia1984 3 16 5.3 chi2006 3 16 5.3 oti1999 4 21 5.3 cin1988 3 15 5.0 buf1991 3 13 4.3 pit1995 3 13 4.3 phi1980 3 11 3.7 min1974 3 10 3.3 rai2002 3 10 3.3 dal1970 3 9 3.0 min1976 3 8 2.7 min1969 3 7 2.3 min1973 3 7 2.3 buf1992 4 8 2.0 buf1993 3 6 2.0 mia1971 3 3 1.0 nwe1985 4 0 0.0 den1977 3 -1 -0.3 ram1979 3 -1 -0.3 kan1966 2 -1 -0.5 den1987 3 -3 -1.0 atl1998 3 -10 -3.3 den1986 3 -11 -3.7 sdg1994 3 -18 -6.0 den1989 3 -28 -9.3
Now that we've got all the data we need, let's get to some analysis. Looking through these lists, nine teams stand out. Honestly all nine teams deserve some consideration, so a thorough analysis was needed. All nine teams are probably top 50 teams in the Super Bowl era, so we're going to have to pick nits, here. We're trying to say which team is the 30th best out of 1200 teams and which team is the 25th best. That's an impossibly difficult task. Comparing across eras is tough enough, but these teams are all on the same level of elite. So bare with me and try to understand where I'm coming from when I make some of these "negative" comments.
9. The 1990 Buffalo Bills. This was Jim Kelly's best season, Thurman Thomas was in his prime, and Bruce Smith had 19 sacks. Key stat: The Bills scored 95 points in their two AFC playoff games. Further fueling their cause is that Buffalo had arguably the closest loss of any SB champ. And, oh yea, nine Bills made the Pro Bowl.
That said, this team was not flawless. The defense was good but not great. They had an easy schedule which makes a lot of their peripheral stats look better than they were. And fair or not, I can't help but wonder how this team would have done in the NFC East instead of the AFC East. They were the kings of the inferior conference. They were star studded and are remembered fondly, but I can't put them ahead of any of the other SB losers.
8. The 1984 Dolphins. Great record, finished very high in points differential and SRS score. Had arguably the greatest QB of all time having his greatest season. An all time great coach. Scored an incredible 28 points in sixteen of their first eighteen games. A juggernaut offense but with a inferior run defense. While 1990 Buffalo gets credit for losing a paper-thin Super Bowl, Miami gets credit for losing to one of the best teams of all time.
7. The 1990 Bills had a HOF RB and a HOF QB; the 1984 Dolphins had maybe the greatest passing offense ever. So how come they fall behind the 1983 Redskins? Because those teams didn't have the offense to match up with Joe Gibbs' squad. The '83 Redskins might have been the best team Washington's ever had. They held the record for points scored in a season until the '98 Vikings topped them. John Riggins rushed for 24 TDs, and Joe Theisman threw 29 TDs and led the league in my quarterback rating system. Arguably the greatest offense of all time. They lost a game 48-47 to the Packers and they lost on opening day 31-30 to the Cowboys. That means this offense carried the team to a 16-1 record over the middle seventeen games and the only loss came when they scored 47 points.
Unlike the Bills and Dolphins, this team was also the defending Super Bowl champs. They had a very good run defense. They faced a slightly harder than average schedule so their stats are legit. This team was very close to being 18-0. The only reason they don't make my top five? One of the most embarassing Super Bowl performances of all time.
6. The 1967 Oakland Raiders. Somehow this team has been forgotten in NFL lore, but I don't know why. That great '83 Redskins offense averaged 33.8 PPG; this Raiders team averaged 33.4 PPG. This was a better team than the '66 Chiefs, but I think because they both lost to the Packers people sort of group them together. But Oakland went 13-1, with the only loss coming on the road against the Jets, a tough trip for a West Coast team against largely the same team that won the Super Bowl the next season. And the Raiders avenged the loss with a win at home against New York later in the year. The Raiders avenged their only loss and then won 40-7 in the post-season to capture the AFL crown. 1967 was a great year for QBs -- Jurgensen, Namath, Tarkenton, Unitas, Gabriel and Hadl all had big years, but Daryle Lamonica was right there with the rest of those guys. The Raiders 33 passing TDs tied for the NFL-AFL lead while their 19 rushing TDs ranked second. Like the four teams before, this was another all time powerful offense. Unlike the other three, this Raiders team played some defense, too. Oakland scored more than twice the number of points they allowed.
The blemish, of course, is an ugly Super Bowl performance. And the '67 Packers were maybe the weakest Packers championship squad of the bunch. Much like Buffalo and the AFC in the '90s, it's hard to ignore that the Raiders were literally in a different league than half of the other team.
Those four teams had terrific, all time great offenses. Thurman Thomas may have been the best weapon on any of those four teams but the number of points the last three teams put up was too much to ignore. As great as those offenses were, and as close as some of them were to being perfect, they all miss out on the top five. I hope tomorrow I'll be able to prove to you why.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 at 7:45 AM and filed under History. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
There are people out there who would argue, "The team who loses the Super Bowl is the champion of their conference; nothing more; nothing less." I strongly disagree with that, because such a remark completely ignores the team's participation in the Super Bowl. If a team just won a conference championship and stopped playing at that point, yes, they would be "just a conference champion". Winning a conference championship and playing in a Super Bowl are two separate events. It is not the case that the loser of the Super Bowl is meaningless with respect to the Super Bowl.
I've actually heard people say that whomever loses the Super Bowl is no further ahead than a team who didn't make it to the playoffs. Man, I hate "all or nothing" thinking.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 10:14 am | PermalinkI just had a thought. Who's had more Super Bowl success: the 49ers or Cowboys? The 49ers are 5-0 in Super Bowls, while the Cowboys are 5-3. Many lists have the 49ers listed above the Cowboys, due, presumably, to having a better SB winning percentage. I would argue that the Cowboys had more success, because both teams won the same number of SBs, but Dallas went to 60% more of them. Losing a SB has got to be better than not being in one. Shoot, the Cowboys had a chance to win 8 of these. The 49ers just had a chance to win 5.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 10:34 am | PermalinkI was a kid in the 1960s and a big AFL fan, and have all kinds of fond memories of that league -- but even so neither the '67 Raiders nor '66 Chiefs belong anywhere near the top of the list of "best" Super Bowl losers by dint of their W-L records and other stats.
When the AFL was merged into the NFL during the 1970 season, the W-L record of the former AFL teams was solidly negative overall and indicated that on average they were about 7 points weaker than the average NFL team (IIRC my numbers right from when I checked it).
Going back to 1967 this gap had to be even larger, say 10 points per game. Knock 140 points off of the '67 Raiders' +235 scoring differential and they are +95 or so by NFL standards, about a 10-4 or 9-5 NFL team.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 11:21 am | PermalinkThe 1966 Chiefs were even weaker, about the strength of an 8-6 or 7-7 NFL team.
I'm no expert in football-history (obvious reasons), but it seems that those sixties-Packers, were unique in their time. The ran the ball more than anyone else, very physical style. Maybe an AFL opponent experienced somewhat of a shock when they for the first time matched up against them. I mean a team from a the razzle-dazzle AFL meeting the hard nosed out-musceling NFL Packers..
Am I reading way too much into this?
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 11:34 am | PermalinkBill, I hated the Bills during their heydey, but I agree with you. It still burns me up any time I hear somebody label the Buffalo Bills as "losers". Four straight Super Bowls will probably never be matched.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 11:59 am | PermalinkIt's a valid point, Jim, but one that I'm not sure is fair to make. Can you really ignore the results of SB III and SB IV? Joe Namath's terrific 1972 season is another indicator that the talent difference wasn't that strong. Maybe in the early '60s there was a big gap, and maybe the bottom feeders of the AFL were a bit worse than the bottom feeders of the NFL, but I think it's tough to really say. The AFL also was able to get a bunch of top talent by the end of the '60s. It's an interesting discussion but one that's hard to do conclude without a really thorough analysis. In the only four inter-conference games, it was 2-2. The Jets also blew out the Giants in a much hyped pre-season game in 1969.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 12:23 pm | PermalinkSome leagues count standings 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for a loss; this would move Dallas (and Pittsburgh) ahead of San Francisco on the all-time list. It would also put 0-4 Buffalo and Minnesota ahead of 1-0 Baltimore (Ravens) and Tampa Bay.
The most striking thing to me on that list of Super Bowl Losers:
No 10-6 teams.
A closer look shows only two 10-6 teams have ever played in the Super Bowl ('07 Giants, '88 Niners); 10-6 teams are
2-7 in conference championships,
9-32 in the divisional round,
and 33 lost the wild card game.
Sixteen teams have finished 10-6 and missed the playoffs, although 14 of those occured in seasons with only two wild cards, including two 10-6 teams missing in the same year 4 times. The two 10-6 teams that missed the third wild card spot were Philadelphia and San Francisco, both in 1991.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 12:38 pm | PermalinkJim Glass-
this is something I plan on doing an indepth study on, trying to compare the two leagues with more than 4 data points. To counter your argument that the Chiefs would have been an average team in the NFL, I'll point to the following:
1) With a very similar roster they finished in a tie for the best record in the AFL in 1968, but lost in a playoff to Oakland; and the next year, beat Minnesota in the Super Bowl.
2) The next pre-season, the AFL and NFL began playing. The Chiefs beat a very mediocre Chicago team 66-24 in KC. Now, I know it's preseason, but it is some evidence.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 2:20 pm | PermalinkHey, it's great to find some AFL sympathizers here, I thought I was a dying breed.
And Chase, nobody has to tell me how good Namath was, I think I was in Shea stadium for every game he played there. There's a modern generation of kid stat-heads who look at his numbers and say "aw, he was never very good, he just won one famous game and had a lot of PR" -- but all they show is the limitations of stats when used by people who read them only superficially. Namath when healthy was just about the best I ever saw (and Lombardi, Madden and Bill Walsh said about the same thing, for those not impressed by me).
I was at that Yale Bowl Jets-Giants exhibition game. It was an annihilation, "The Revenge of the Jets", the closest thing a football field will ever see to the Romans sacking Carthage and sowing salt in the ground afterward for spite. I swear the Jets players and fans were more emotional about that game than the Super Bowl. There's nothing like that AFL-NFL rivalry today -- and it turned me into a Jets fan for 40 more years, so far, God help me, I haven't been able to find a cure.
BUT all that aside ... facts are facts and checking my old notes from when I looked at it, during the 1970 season in the newly merged league the former AFL teams went 19-38-2 against the rest of the NFL, showing that on the whole they were still a good way behind it. The only AFL team with a winning record was Oakland at 3-2. So it's not like a couple of teams having bad off years skewed the total, it was losing across the board.
My impression in 1969 was that the AFL was a two-tier league: the Jets, Raiders, Chiefs and Charger offense could play winning- quality ball in the NFL, but everyone else was still way behind. Then starting in '70 Shula got the Dolphins together while the Jets tanked.
As far as the four AFL SB entrants were concerned, IMHO the '69 Chiefs who beat the Jets, Raiders and Vikes were very much the real deal ... The '68 Jets were real ... The '67 Raiders weren't nearly as good as their numbers, because the league was weaker the earlier back you go ... and the '66 Chiefs were about half of a good team.
I still have a program from the first Super Bowl, and the Chiefs' roster was half good players (Dawson, Buck Buchanan, Otis Taylor, etc.) and half "who dat?" nobodies. But a you can't have a real contender with a roster like that because a real contending opponent will attack those weaknesses and rip 'em to shreds. Which is what the Packers did, that result was no fluke. Yet those Chiefs were 12-2-1 in the AFL including the championship game, which looks real good. By '69 the Chiefs had filled out the rest of the roster and were a real-deal contender, a *much* better team, but lost more games (well, 3), I take that as showing how the league was getting better.
I guess the issue is the '67 Raiders as to being a "best SB loser". Admittedly, as a Jets fan of that era I hated and loathed the Raiders, so I may be biased. But I think that to determine how good they were one has to take their total point differential to compute a Pythagorean after adjusting it down by the level of competition. Several AFL teams they played in '67 were awful -- Denver, Buffalo, Boston, Mia, the SD defense and Houston offense -- worse than they were three years later when the AFL as a whole went that 19-38-2 against the NFL.
After adjusting for that I come up with with the '67 Raiders as the equivalent of a 10-4 or 9-5 NFL team. One person's opinion, for what it's worth, your mileage may vary.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 4:43 pm | PermalinkGreat stuff, Jim. Thanks for posting that.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 4:53 pm | PermalinkBill M.---I want to DITTO what Richie posted-those Bills Teams were far from being losers. IMO, your same logic applies to your QB (Jim Kelly) also. To lead those teams to 4 straight Conf. Champ. wins was a great accomplishment, seeing as how 2 of them were ranked next to last on Defense. I know I told you this already, but I thought it beared repeating here.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 6:32 pm | PermalinkDanish Den.-fan-----Believe it or not, those 60's Packer Teams were more proficient at passing the ball than running it (especially the 3 Champs. in a row ('65, '66' and '67. There is a really good article about this on coldhardfootballfacts. It's found in the thread about their 10 Greatest QB's ever, and their No. 1 is Bart Starr. In the analysis of Starr, they go on to compare his running game vs. his passing stats.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 7:06 pm | PermalinkHmm... Best as in "take these two teams and make them play 1,000,000 games and see who wins more" or "most dominant when they were playing"?
If I had to pick the best basketball player, it'd be MJ. If I had to pick the most dominant, it'd be Wilt. So at least by my thinking, those are two different questions with potentially two different answers...
In either situation, I'd probably take the '07 Pats over anybody, but I'm too young to have experienced the 1960s and 1970s NFL.
Posted on 20-Jan-09 at 9:45 pm | PermalinkChase,
This is a fun project, and I'm looking forward to the Top 5. I did something similar three years ago:
http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2006/02/05/the_nfls_greatest_losers.php
I think the '07 Pats are very difficult to rank because of something you wrote about last year -- the difference between the first and second halves of the season. The '68 Colts, for instance, would creeeeam the Patriots team that played in Super Bowl XLII. The Week 6 Pats might well beat them.
Have we ever done Worst Super Bowl losers, or even worst SB teams in general?
Posted on 21-Jan-09 at 12:46 am | PermalinkIn the discussion of AFL vs NFL, a couple of points:
1. In 1967, as a whole, the Rams and the Colts were the best teams, with the Packers and Cowboys behind them. The Packers were obviously the best team in the playoffs but if they hadn't had HFA vs the Rams, as they wouldn't in today's playoff world, the outcome might have been different. The Raiders were clearly the class of the AFL. So the gap between the AFL's best and the NFL's best may have been BIGGER than the SB outcome.
2. In 1968, the Colts were the best NFL team, with only the Cowboys having an argument against them - and they lost in the 1st rd to the Browns (another example of the lesser regular season team having HFA?). The Jets were not clearly better than the Raiders or Chiefs that season, but dominated the Colts in the SB. In this case, the difference between the AFL's best and the NFL's may have been BIGGER in favor of the AFL than the SB outcome indicates.
3. In 1969, the Vikings narrowly beat the Rams and then badly beat the Browns (who badly beat the Cowboys, this time in DAL). The Vikings were the best team in the NFL, but it's arguably close with the Rams and less so with the Browns and Cowboys. The Chiefs beat the Raiders and the Jets by relatively narrow margins on the road and then dominated the Vikings in the SB. The AFL's best as a group were at least as good and probably better than the NFL's top teams in 1969.
The overall numbers in 1970 favor the old NFL teams. On the other hand, while the Colts won their divsion (helped by the aging of the Jets core and Namath's injury), the Browns, a playoff perennial in the pre-merger NFL couldn't even win their division despite not having any of the pre-merger AFL elite in it. My highly subjective sense is that the leagues as a whole were very close in ability by '68-69, closer than the 1970 H2H (and 68-69 SB) results indicate.
Posted on 21-Jan-09 at 11:43 am | PermalinkRegarding CHFF saying Lombardi's Packers had an inferior running game while Bart Starr was the greatest QB of all time...
The great thing about CHFFF is that they pay attention to all the football history that most fans neglect. Baseball fans have a big awareness of their sport's history, while a lot of football fans seem to think if they didn't see a player on ESPN he never existed, which is a pity.
The bad thing about CHFF is that their presentation and interpretation of facts often is ... well ... wingbat.
Nobody in Starr's own era thought he was the best QB even of his own time. A cold hard fact that CHFF somehow overlooks is that Starr was voted 1st-team All NFL once, and to the Pro Bowl 5 times -- while John Unitas was voted 1st-team All NFL 5 times and to the Pro Bowl 10 times. So who did their contemporaries think was best?
If you want to see why, here are some more facts: While they had very comparable adjusted average yards per attempt in their best 10 seasons, the "prolific" Starr (a CHFF praise word for him) threw for over 2,000 yards in a season only five times in his entire career, and his "most prolific" season was only 2,438 yards -- while Unitas threw for 3,000+ yds 3 times and 2,000+ yards 13 times. Starr's biggest yardage season would have been Unitas' 11th biggest. Total up their 10 best seasons, Starr threw for 19,741 yards, Unitas for 29,516 -- 50% more!!
CHFF makes their claim for Starr on the basis of his passing rating -- maybe the junkiest stat in all sports. It's the equivalent of a yards-per-attempt rating that adds a bonus of 20 yards per completion (!). Thus, it is *hugely biased* in favor of short-throwing, high % passers like Starr to the cost of long-throwers like Unitas. So much so that if a QB completes 100% of his passes while *losing yards on every pass* he gets a rating of 79 -- no matter how many yards he loses per play: 1, 5, 10, 100 (!). (It's why on the NFL all-time passer rating list, 90% of the top 50 QBs all-time played after the rule changes of 1978, in a West Coast Offense.) CHFF also says that Unitas played on better teams than the Packers, he had more support -- which is some kind of joke, right?
Then they say Starr *had* to have carried the Packers because the Pack had an inferior running game -- which surely would have come as a shock to Lombardi, the Packers and the rest of the NFL, as the Pack ran right through it year after year, just about like Sherman marched through Georgia.
The supposed proof of the poor running game is that the Packers had a "poor" average yards per carry compared to the rest of the league. But yards per carry is almost as junky a stat for measuring running effectiveness as the NFL's passing rating is for passing.
Consider a rushing contest: If a team runs for 3.5 yards per carry each and every play, it is an unstoppable scoring machine. Another team that runs for an average of 5.0 per carry, with individual carries evenly distributed over from -5 to +15 yards, will wind up punting several times after sequences of low yardage runs. So the team running for "only" 3.5 per play will kick the butt of the team running for an average of 5.0 each and every time.
If one reads any of the good bios of Lombardi one will see this is exactly and explicitly what the famous Packer Sweep was designed to do, get 3 or 4 yards *every* play, not to break long runs to boost the average, with Starr working play action off of it to hit high % of short passes, until the D finally put everyone up on the line to stop the short stuff, when he'd go over the top deep (as he did in both SB I and II to break the game open).
But any "analysis" that says Starr was a more prolific or better passer than Unitas is really factually challenged (no slight to Starr, who is a fully deserving HoFer) -- and the claim that Lombardi's Packers had an inferior running game ... geezeallmighty!.
I personally enjoy reading the CHFF site a lot -- but only when I have a big heaping mug of salt to take with it.
Posted on 23-Jan-09 at 2:05 am | PermalinkHey Jim---I am another ol-AFL guy. When Lamonica was torching CB's, I came of football age, and became for a long time a Raider fan.
I agree with most of what you write about the old AFL with its top teams reaching parity with the NFL in 68 and 69.
I was rereading Bob Carroll's "When the Grass was Real," he quotes Willie Brown as saying the AFL's advantage over the NFL was that it had "the best [defensive] secondary people in football." Not sure I agree with Brown---KC, Oak, and Hou had strong secondaries, but this was a weakness for the Jets and the rest of the AFL (hence go long mad bomber go long).
Have you read Allen Barra's essay Starr vs Unitas? Barra makes the best case for Starr---CHFF seem to be parroting Barra's arguments. That said comparing Unitas and Starr is like comparing Dimaggio and Williams, they are all time greats and may just be a matter of taste who one prefers.
Posted on 23-Jan-09 at 9:34 pm | PermalinkMad Bomber---Great comment about comparing Starr and Unitas to Dimaggio and Williams. I grew up a Balt. Colt fan in the 50's, so I worshipped Unitas. It was so frustrating watching Starr because he hardly ever put his Team in a position to lose a big game, and to put it more correctly-he always seemed to have them in position to WIN a BIG GAME. Looking back now, I am amazed at his high Passing Yards Per Attempt. I wonder if Dowler and McGee could break 10 seconds in the 40.
Posted on 24-Jan-09 at 8:34 am | Permalink