The Best Super Bowl Loser Ever, Part 2
Posted by Chase Stuart on January 21, 2009
Yesterday we took a look at some of the statistics of the 43 teams to ever lose a Super Bowl, and I began the complicated task of ranking the top Super Bowl losers. Four great offenses -- the '90 Bills, '84 Dolphins, '83 Redskins and '69 Raiders -- made the cut but fell outside the top five. Today we'll take an in depth look at one man's view on the five greatest Super Bowl losers of all time.
5. 1978 Cowboys. Don't let the 12-4 record deceive you. The Cowboys ranked 1st in points scored and 3rd in points allowed. Dallas had five Hall of Famers on their team, including Tom Landry. Unfortunately for them, they ran into a team with nine HOFers and Lynn Swann, and lost one of the closest Super Bowls of all time. And if not for Jackie Smith, they might not even be on this list.
What makes this team special?
The Cowboys were the defending SB champs which earns them bonus points in my book. Roger Staubach had another brilliant season and ranked as the top QB in the league. Tony Dorsett ranked second in the league in yards from scrimmage, behind only Walter Payton. Tony Hill had only two receptions for the '77 champs but led Dallas in receiving yards in '78. With both Pearsons returning and TE Billy Joe DuPree making his third straight Pro Bowl, this was an offense that had stars at every level.
Too Tall Jones was in the prime of his career, as were Pro Bowl DL Randy White and Harvey Martin. Both safeties also made the Pro Bowl. If this sounds like a flawless team, you're not imagining things. Dallas ranked in the top five in passing yards, passing yards allowed, rushing yards and rushing yards allowed. The Cowboys also ranked in the top five in adjusted net yards per attempt, adjusted net yards per attempt allowed, yards per carry and yards per carry allowed.
The Cowboys avenged one of their regular season losses by blowing the Rams out in Los Angeles, 28-0. That great performance, combined with going head to head with the Steelers, makes them worthy of being called one of the five greatest SB runner ups ever. And like the next team on this list, they ranked in the top five in both SRS rating and in playoff margin of victory.
4. 2001 Rams. It's not easy to find fault with this team that went 16-2 before falling to the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXVI. The Rams lost by three to the Saints (and avenged that with a 13 point win later in the year) and by a touchdown to the rival Bucs. For the third straight season, the Rams cleared 500 points scored. Kurt Warner was in his prime and was the top QB in the league. Marshall Faulk chipped in a typical season of 2100 total yards and 21 total TDs. Torry Holt was now a superstar WR whereas he was just a part of the '99 machine. With Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az-Zahir Hakim, the Greatest Show on Turf was almost impossible to even slow down. St. Louis scored 30 or more points in 11 of their 16 games, put up 45 in their playoff opener and then had a workmanlike 29 points in an NFC Championship win over the Eagles.
The Rams ranked 4th in adjusted net yards per pass allowed and boasted an above average rush defense. The Rams defense stole the show in the playoff game against the Packers, with six interceptions of Brett Favre. For the season, Leonard Little and Grant Wistrom combined for 23.5 sacks, London Fletcher had his typical big year in the middle and cornerbacks Aeneas Williams, Dexter McCleon and Dre' Bly combined for 14 interceptions, six fumble recoveries and five defensive touchdowns.
This team often looked invincible and unbeatable. The prior year, with a terrible defense, the Rams set the record for passing yards in a season and scored the third most points in league history. This team could have put up just as gaudy offensive numbers but did not have the need because of the strong pass defense. In the Super Bowl, the Rams defense didn't let the team down, allowing only one touchdown. But on that day, the '01 Patriots found a way to win.
3. Minnesota 1969. I recently wrote about the greatest defenses of all time, and the '69 Vikings were one of only four teams (now five, thanks to the '07 Steelers) since 1960 to lead the league in points allowed, offensive touchdowns allowed, adjusted net yards per attempt allowed and adjusted yards per carry allowed. That's the combined AFL-NFL league, not just the sixteen team NFL. I argued that the Purple People Eaters were maybe the greatest defense of all time:
Post-season failures by the team enabled this dynastic defense to fade into oblivion. The ‘69 Vikings went 1-1-1-1 in our four categories; the ‘70 version went 1-1-1-3 and the ‘71 team went 1-1-2-2. The Vikings had a three year stretch that was never matched.... The ‘69 Vikings allowed 133 points, 0.9 OTA/G, 0.96 ANYAA and 3.47 AYPCA. NFL averages were 301, 2.3, 4.70 and 4.62.
Many have waxed poetic about the 2007 Giants defensive line -- well the '69 Vikings sent all four lineman to the Pro Bowl. You know your line is stacked when Jim Marshall is your third best player. That Vikings DL was the last quartet to all make the Pro Bowl, although Marshall's three teammates all earned invitations again in '70. The Vikings allowed only 44% as many points as the league average team, the lowest ratio of any team since 1960.
The Cleveland Browns, third in the league in scoring, got obliterated 51-3 by the Vikings in the regular season. When the teams met again to decide the NFC Championship, you know the Browns -- with a Pro Bowl QB, RB and WR -- were anxious for revenge. Instead, they were held out of the end zone until the game's final minutes, scoring a meaningless touchdown in a 27-7 defeat.
I don't think there's ever been a better defense than this team; the '85/'86 Bears, '00 Ravens, '02 Bucs and '07 Steelers may have matched them but no one can ever lay claim to being stingier, tougher or more talented than this group.
What about the offense? Quarterback Joe Kapp took over after Minnesota dropped their first game of the season, and he went 14-1 before dropping that Super Bowl to the Chiefs. That said, Kapp ranked as just an average QB in my quarterback rating system, and he's the glaring weakness on this team. It's easy to think of Vikings as one team because of the SB appearances in '69, '73, '74 and '76, but the '69 team had arguably the greatest defense of all time and an average offense while the Fran Tarkenton and Chuck Foreman teams had merely run of the mill very good defenses. The lone star of this offense was wideout Gene Washington, who wasn't even the best wide receiver named Gene Washington of his era.
That said, while the offense may have lacked star power, they still led the league in points scored. The Vikings have the best Pythagorean record of any Super Bowl runner up, and are worthy of their third place finish on this list.
That leaves just two teams. The 1968 Baltimore Colts (15-2) and the 2007 New England Patriots (18-1). I don't think any of us forgot what the '07 Pats did, so let's start with some background on the Colts. I have no doubt that had Baltimore won, those Colts would be in the small discussion for greatest team of all time. For starters, they were 18 point favorites in the Super Bowl despite the Packers being "just" 14 and 13.5 point favorites in their Super Bowls -- people viewed them as unbeatable. These Colts allowed just 10.3 PPG in the regular season, the same the Baltimore Ravens would allow in 2000. This was an all time great defense that happened to have the league MVP at quarterback. Very few times do you have a star QB and a star defense on the same team, but this was one of those teams.
We've got an all time great defense and an excellent offense against the best offense of all time and a very good defense. How do we decide? Prior to the Super Bowl, the Patriots had outscored their opponents 35.6 to 17.0, a margin of 18.6 PPG; not to be outdone, the Colts outscored their opponents 28.8 to 9.9, a margin of 18.9 PPG. One-third of the Patriots 18 games were decided by ten points or less, and they of course went 6-0; only one-fourth of the Colts' 16 games were decided by 10 points or less, and they went 3-1.
Let's go unit by unit:
Pass offense: Tom Brady had one of the three greatest seasons any quarterback has ever had. Earl Morrall was a worthy NFL MVP, as he ranked as the top QB in the NFL that season according to my QB rating system. That said, over in the AFL, Len Dawson and Daryle Lamonica had seasons that were just as good. While Morrall season's was great, there's not much comparison here. As for Johnny Unitas, he only completed 11 passes that season. Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Donte Stallworth vs. Jimmy Orr, Willie Richardson and John Mackey. Randy Moss had one of the greatest WR seasons ever, Wes Welker had an incredible 112 catches and Donte Stallworth was a strong third receiver. For the Colts, Jimmy Orr averaged an absurd 25.6 yards per reception, Willie Richardson ranked in the top ten in receiving touchdowns and John Mackey ranked in the top ten in receptions. Both teams led their leagues in passing touchdowns, but passing offense is a big edge for the '07 Pats.
Pass defense: The Colts allowed just 1.9 adjusted net yards per attempt while the rest of the league averaged 4.5 ANY/A; New England allowed 4.6 ANY/A while the other 31 teams allowed 5.5 ANY/A. The Colts had an outstanding pass defense led by Bubba Smith and Bobby Boyd, and ranked 1st in yards per pass allowed, 1st in passing TDs allowed, 2nd in interceptions and 3rd in sacks. New England ranked 6th, 15th, 6th and 2nd in those categories. The Pats pass defense was good but not great; the Colts pass defense was excellent.
Rush offense:If both of these all time great teams had a weakness, this was it. Tom Matte was a better all time player than any Patriots running back, but while he earned a Pro Bowl berth, 1968 wasn't his best season. Matte was terrific in the playoffs, though, with 28 carries for 204 yards and three rushing scores. Terry Cole and Jerry Hill made this one of the most physical trios in the league. Laurence Maroney had an injury plagued season, but was very good when he played and also had a terrific postseason (61-280-3). Sammy Morris and Kevin Faulk provided nice complements to Maroney and filled in for him when he went down. New England ranked 9th in attempts, 13th in yards, 5th in TDs and 14th in YPC. Baltimore ranked 6th, 8th, 5th and 9th in those cateogires but out of a 16 team NFL. I'm having a hard time calling this one for either group.
Rush defense: The Colts ranked 5th in adjusted yards per carry allowed in the combined AFL-NFL, and in their own league ranked 2nd in attempts and touchdowns allowed and third in yards and yards per carry allowed. The Pats ranked 1st in carries allowed (most teams didn't have time to run the ball against New England), 10th in yards allowed, 3rd in TDs and 26th in yards per carry allowed. That last number is misleading as New England certainly allowed a bunch meaningless long runs at the ends of games. That said, I have a hard time making the argument for the Pats rush D over the Colts rush D.
Both teams had a historic coach, of course, so no edge there. Lou Michaels and Stephen Gostkowski both ranked as league average place kickers, in my yet to be released and surely not anticipated kicker rating system. Preston Pearson and Ellis Hobbs were both very good return men.
In the end, this one's very, very close. Baltimore's clearly got the stronger defense while New England just as clearly had the stronger offense. New England beat the one opponent that beat them; Baltimore avenged their only loss (before the Super Bowl) in spectacular fashion. Bill Nelson threw 3 TD and 0 INT against the Colts, who allowed just 9 passing TD and forced 29 INT on the season; in the post-season rematch, the Colts picked off Nelson twice in a 34-0 shutout. In the end, I'm going to give the nod to the '68 Colts as the greatest Super Bowl loser of all time. The Patriots outscored their opponents by 25.4 PPG through ten games but averaged just a 8.7 PPG margin of victory for the last eight games. That Patriots team was the greatest team anyone's ever seen through Thanksgiving, but they were not the same team the rest of the way. Whether or not they folded under unbelievable expectations, got figured out by the league, or if their old roster just ran out of steam, by the end of the season, New England was not an all time great team. Baltimore was terrific from start to finish, blew out almost every opponent, and had a high powered offense with a historically great defense. These two teams are the greatest Super Bowl losers ever, and have other thing in common: they both fell at the hands of a New York team.
Related posts:
ShareThis
January 21st, 2009 at 10:50 am
Great analysis. I have to disagree with #1 & #2--I think they should be reversed. (As a Saints fan, I have no dog in this fight.) Here's my opinion why:
1. Pats won all their games.
2. They played 16 regular season games, plus 2 playoff games before the SB. Colts only played 14--did they play once or twice before the SB?
3. Media coverage--I think part of the Pats "decline" is based on the hype of the "perfect season" and every team gunning to beat them. Ravens' game and Giants in week 17 are great examples. (I'm willing to bet that the Ravens played better in that game than any other by a LOT.)
4. Chase--one thing missing from the analysis is THE RULE CHANGES ENACTED TO HELP OFFENSES since 1968. This inevitably helps the comparisons for the Pats O and the Colts D. I know you basically compared them to the teams in that year, but how much better were they than #2 or #3 in the league for that year (or how far were they from first)? [In other words, someone always is #1 in a category--but were they clearly #1, or just slightly better than #2?]
5. According to Football Outsiders, NE also had the best RUSHING OFFENSE!!--not by yards or anything, but by effectiveness (DVOA). Two yard carries aren't good, except at the goal line and on (x) and 1 or 2 yds to go. I'm willing to bet they had very few, if any, 40+ yd runs. Also, if you use the NFL stats/rankings, they include kneel-downs as rushes--the Pats, I'm sure, had more than average, if not a record number of, kneel-downs. Not to mention that they probably had more than a normal number of 4th Q runs-to-run-out-the-clock.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:59 am
Solid points, Joseph. I'd imagine the Colts had their fair share of kneeldowns as well, though
. And whether or not you agreed with or even felt that the Pats ran up the score, I think it's safe to say that the Colts did not do that. That's one of the differences in the pure stats between a dominant offense and a dominant defense -- a dominant defense has no need to run up the score (which makes their stats look better).
I think #1 and #2 are just about even. As far as record goes, the Pats were about a hair away from losing that Ravens game. Had that timeout not been called (and many believe it wasn't proper), they are 17-2 and the Colts are 15-2, and that's pretty close to even.
As far as the NE running game, I simply don't believe they had the best rushing offense in the league (or really anything very close to it). Minnesota and San Diego (with Tomlinson, Turner and Sproles) certainly had better running games. I understand the way Football Outsiders works, but I don't believe was afraid of NE because of their running game.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
One of the argument's in the Colts' favor is that the '67 team was just as good; if you look at them over a two-year period they are the stronger team. The '08 Pats (or '06) were clearly inferior to the '07 version.
Granted, this year's Pats were missing '07 MVP Brady, but the '68 Colts were missing '67 MVP Unitas and still dominated their league. While I agree it's close, I think the Colts were better. But then I was a Colts fan in those days...
The Chiefs' homer in me (having dropped rooting for the Colts when they moved) would argue that the '69 Vikings' defense, great as it was, was not even the best defense on the field in SB IV. The Chiefs' D held the 25 ppg Jets to 6 in the playoffs. Then they limited the 27 ppg Raiders (coming off a 56-pt effort in the 1st rd) to 7 pts. Both those games came on the road. Then, on a neutral field, they held the Vikings' 27 ppg offense (23 and 27 in the playoffs) to 7 pts. So in three games, none at home, the '69 Chiefs gave up 20 points TOTAL to teams averaging close to 27 points a GAME. Four of the 11 starters (vs. 3 Vikings) are in the HoF and I've seen it argued that Culp was the best NT of all time although probably Thomas was the last member of that squad who'll make the Hall.
January 21st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I realized the 70s Cowboys were great but did not realize how good that 78 team was. I saw them as a little brother to the Steelers rather than as a peer and maybe that's because time has portrayed the Steelers as so dominant with no peer.
I did not see the Colts, but I would put them over the Pats from last eyar as the Pats had so many close calls the 2nd half of the year. The Iggles, Ravens, Jets and Giants games were all very very tight.
@Joseph - I think this is the 2nd time I've said this here, but I always use caution when citing football outsiders as they have weird outliers vs. reality. They had the Iggles as the best team in the NFL this year and seem to tweak their formulas after the formulas dont match up with reality.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
@SOBL - having 3 conference-game-participants in the top 4 in total DVOA isn't too shabby? And it's not like "reality" predicted the Cards to suddenly explode the way they did. They never say, they are perfect, but DVOA's still the best at predicting future results.
You should of course always use caution when citing stats, but I can't see why DVOA should be worse than any other stat.
-
Thread-jacking aside, maybe a variance-analyzis (spelling) would give a clue. The Pats got mortal at the end of the season, and though I'm born in '89 my image of the Colts is that, they were constantly dominating opponents. New England had a close one in the AFC championship - how did the Colts do in the Playoffs?
-
Chase, you mention that MVP-QBs and dominating defenses seldom get together on the same team. Entering a field i know very little about, isn't that what the NFL intends with their salary-cap? The Colts weren't battling a such cap, and therefor could construct this "dream-team".
-
I'm not trying to make a case for either (Broncos-fan, no dog), just ranting!
January 21st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Regarding Danish-Denver-fan's last post--true there was no salary cap but there was also no free agency. Players were acquired thru trades and the draft. The Colts were burned in 1965 by injuries to Cuozzo and Unitas and lost in the playoffs, barely, to the Packers with Tom Matte, a RB, playing QB. Getting Morrall, who had success as a back-up and as a starter sort of completed the situation for the Colts in case Unitas would get hurt. Insofar as great teams to lose the SB, this team with a similar roster would win the SB in two years. Statistically they were not quite as good, but they were still dominating. The Colts teams from 1965-1968 were tremendous. I'm a Cowboy fan from the 1960's and was eager to see the high flying 1968 Cowboy team meet the Colts defense. But we stumbled badly against Cleveland (a sick and injured Dandy Don had a bad game). Luv the analysis and the discussion in this area. And thanks for including Dallas in the list--the 1978 team was terrific (though it did underachieve sometimes).
January 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Okay, Tim - thanks for the info. The the lack of free agency seems to cancel the salary-cap out...
January 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
2007 Patriots through the first 10 games might be the best team ever.
However, 2007 Patriots through the last 9 games are just "quite good".
And about the Pats having a lot of kneel downs: ehh, not really. They had 19 kneel downs for -21 yards (this includes any from the 2nd QT too). I have kneel down data for the 2004 and 2005 seasons and here are the teams with more kneel downs:
04 Steelers - 34
05 Colts - 28
04 Patriots - 27
04 Chargers - 25
04 Eagles - 22
04 Colts - 20
05 Jaguars - 20
04 Seahawks - 19
05 Broncos - 19
05 Steelers - 19
05 Seahawks - 19
January 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I don't quite buy the rule change argument -- It helped the 07 pats offense and hurt the 68 colts offense, but it should have also hurt the 07 pats defense and helped the 68 colts defense. For lopsided teams like the Warner era Rams, that might not balance out, but both these teams were good on both sides of the ball.
SOS was not mentioned when comparing the last two teams... I know the Pats had a fairly hard schedule, did the Colts? (not being rhetorical, I honestly don't know)
Also, I think there is a big difference between 18-0 and 15-1 when that 1 loss comes in game 6. There's something special about trying to knock off an undefeated team that the Pats had to play into for something like 12 extra games. The Colts were secure in their awesomeness without having the giant target painted on their backs.
And while the Pats were nearly 17-1 before the superbowl, they were also nearly 19-0 after the superbowl. The Colts seem to have lost both their games soundly, and the last score in both of them was by the Colts -- I don't know when those happened, but it looks like one or both of those scores could have been garbage points. The Pats lost only one game and by only three points, and it was largely due to a single miraculous play, and that was after rattling off 18 consecutive victories.
And I know turnovers were more common in the olden days, but the Pats 15 turnovers in 16 games vs the Colts 34 turnovers in 14 games has to count for something too.
You've convinced me that it's a lot closer than I assumed, but I still give the nod to the Patriots.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@Joseph
I'm going to assume you didn't watch much of the 07 Patriots, given your comments that they probably had a lot of kneeldowns and rushes to run out the clock in the 4th quarter, and this brings their conventional stats down. Simply put, they really didn't.
This is a team that went for it on fourth down while in the red zone leading 38-0 in the fourth quarter. In that game, in which they won 52-7, here are Tom Brady's rushing stats:
4 attempts, for 14 yards and 2 TDs. Seeing how the TD runs were from 2 and 3 yards out, that allows AT MOST 1 kneeldown, and that only if you assume Brady had an 11-yard rush in that game, which I knid of doubt.
Matt Cassel's Running stats are 1 for 15 and a TD btw.
So, I would instead argue that the only reason they had the best rushing DVOA in the league is because they prety much only rushed on X and short, at the goalline, or on QB scrambles/draws, also often near the goal-line. The entire TEAM rushed 451 times. Their 3 RBs rushd a combined 332 times, less than most feature backs. Their leading rusher had 185 carries. Those are not the numbers of a pass-first team that rushes well. Those are the numbers of a team constantly throwing to un up the score even when ahead by multiple TDs late in the game.
OK, just found the play-by-play of that Washington game, one of, if not their most dominant performance of the year, the Redskin's only TD coming in the fourth quarter after they were already down 52-0): While they did kneel down on their final posession, with 22 seconds left, and they did insert Gutierrez the possesion before that, in which they executed 3 rushes for -19 yards (yes, -19), with 3:00 just after the Washington TD, on the possesion before that, which started with 8:30 left in the fourth quarter, up by 45 and with Cassel in, they went 1-yd run, pass, pass, pass, 1-yd run, 15 yards scramble by Cassel (read called pass) for a TD.
In 16 games in 07 the Patriots took 15 knees at the end of either the 2nd or 4th quarter. in 16 games, the 08 Saints, also a powerfull ofense, which only won 8 games, thus halving the oportunities for kneeldowns, and which was trying to give Brees the passing record, knelt 10 times at the end of the 2nd or 4th quarter. So I would estipulate that no, the Patriots had in no way, form or shape "more than average, if not a record number of, kneel-downs." Nor did they have an abnormal number of 4th-quarter, clock-killing runs. unless by abnormal you mean well below the mean. Even the Saints, trying to get Brees the record, against the 08 Lions, rushed far more in the fourth quarter than the 07 Patriots in their biggest blowout.
Finally, to give my take on which of the two teams is the best one (I'm a Chicago fan, so I hate them pretty much equaly), while the 07 Patriots got their numbers by running up the score in ways which would be frowned upon in college, thus inflating them substantially, a good defense can't, by definition, run up their numbers. On the contrary, the better they are, the more propense they are to get their numbers deflated. By giving the ball back to the offense more often, they risk more defensive points scored against their team. By being ahead late in the game, they encourage people to pass on them and gain big chunks of yardage. And by going into softer defenses to run out the clock, they give up more yardage still.
So, on that basis, I would have to conclude that the Colts D was more dominant than the Pats O, and as such I would have to give the edge to them. And seriouly, if the ridiculous chain of events at the end of the Baltimore game doesn't happen, and/or McNabb is able to play against them, thus haveing them 17-1 or 16-2 going into the SB (and probably less, because I'm guessing they lose to the Giants as well at that point), would we even be having this discussion at all? The 07 Patriots were an amazing offense. The 68 Colts were an astounding team.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I agree about those Vikings. Everybody talks about the Bears, Steel Curtain, and more recent Bucs and Ravens teams when discussing great all-time defenses, but those Vikings have a very credible case for Best Defense Ever.
As to those '68 Colts -- as a kid Jets fan of the day I can testify that the NFL people were regularly calling those Colts "The Best Team Ever" and "The Best Defense Ever", as if it was self-evident, there was no competition to consider. And if the season had ended with the NFL championship game that they won 34-0, they might have been remembered that way.
(Sports Illustrated's lead football writer, Tex Maule, in his coverage before SB III, ridiculed the idea that the Jets were even going on the field for the game.)
Of course the Jets game put an end to that -- and in a way it's a pity that football fans tend to have an "all or nothing", the championship game means everything, attitude when evaluating teams. That Colts team really did have a great year and deserves to be remembered among the great teams. Same for those Vikings teams that lost all those Super Bowls, they had to be a great team just to get there all those times, but some fans seem to hold it against them, like it is some sort of special failure of charater to get to the Super Bowl and not win, a team is better off losing earlier if it's going to lose. Those Vikes may be the most slighted of all the top historic teams.
(All that said, as a Jets fan, it's still fun to watch the old video of SB III and hear Curt Gowdy, the AFL's network TV announcer, say off air to his crew during a commercial break, "I hope that son of a bitch Tex Maule is enjoying this.")
January 21st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Great research, great effort. Really readable and well conceived. I wonder, though, if the Pats losing by 3 might trump the Colts losing by 9? Or were the Jets (relatively speaking) superior to the Giants? Layers upon layers.
Thanks for the read.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I'm partial to the '69 Vikings and agree that their QB play was what prevented them from winning. Kapp was an outstanding leader and got things done, but his stats were far from above average. That being said, I honestly believe if he had stuck around the '70 team would've won the Super Bowl. The D was outstanding from 69-71. The Vikes went 12-2, 12-2 and 11-3 during that span.
In January 1970, the Chiefs were the better team, but what has always bothered me is that it's practically never mentioned that eight months later the Vikings manhandled the Chiefs 27-10 in the '70 season opener.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Thanks for the comments on my post.
#10 Big Cheese, you're right--I might have seen one of their regular season games, although all of the post-season ones. I live in Mexico, and without cable, I get two games on Sunday and don't always watch them, as I listen to the Saints via NFL Field Pass. I simply assumed that they would have had more kneel-downs even with their early season propensity to run up the score.
Chase, I don't think they had the BEST running game--I was making the point that they had a pretty EFFECTIVE one (everyone admits they had a out-of-this-world passing game). In a way, it's like when you pick up a 3rd and 10 with a draw play because the D is playing pass all the way.
#4 SOBL, you can knock FO's stats if you like. However, #5 has a pretty decent rebuttal. FWIW, the reason FO's stats have some outliers is that their main stat, DVOA, is meant to measure EFFECTIVENESS. The stats here at PFR don't always agree with FO's, but I check both sites almost daily, because I like both points of view.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Although it is rather subjective in order to bring in the argument that 18-0 trumps 15-1 one should consider strength of schedule. The Pats had 6 victories with an average margin of victory of 25.5 PPG against the Bills, Jets and Dolphins whose combined record excluding games among themselves against the rest of the NFL was 6-30 (.167); 4 of the Bills 7 wins were against the Jets and Dolphins and half the Jets 4 victories were against the Dolphins. As to how good were the teams they lost to; hard to tell but after the fact of Super Bowl III (which in a note of trivia was the first to actually be called the Super Bowl) a consensus developed that the old AFL was a lot stronger than the old NFL at that time and the Jets were arguably only the second best team after the Raiders (the Raiders always thought so) and possibly the third behind also the Chiefs (and they beat the Colts by 9 holding that 18.9 PPG margin of victory team to a single touchdown).
January 24th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I remember reading the NFL box scores every week back in 1976. Never seen anything like it since. There was a string where every game was a shutout or almost a shutout. Five shutouts that year. No defense dominated like those 76 Steelers.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Wow, look at Joe Kapp's performance with the 69 Vikings and his season in 1970 with the Patriots. Talk about a drop.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Kapp missed all of training camp due to his contract dispute with the Vikings and didn't get to the Pats until the 3rd or 4th week of the season. An out-of-shape Kapp didn't do much for a poor Patriots team. Actually, I'm continually surprised that the '70 Pats are never mentioned among the worst teams of all-time. Not the worst but has to be in the top 20 at least.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Response to Leonard. Not sure if the consensus was that the AFL had the stronger teams in 1968. There was some agreement that they had come a long way but whether they could hold up to the better NFL teams was not generally agreed. The best measure, though not perfect, was how did the NFC and the traditional NFL teams that moved to the AFC (Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh) do compared to the former AFL teams (now the AFC). The "better" AFC teams did not do so well against the NFC or to Baltimore. But truly the gap had been closed considerably. The Chiefs serve as a good example. They lost 27-10 to the Vikings on opening day and later to Dallas (when they were not performing well--they would lose to St. Louis 38-0 in two weeks)27-16. I'd say the gap was closed by 1972 and the rest of the decade it was the AFC's deal (supported alot by the success of Pittsburgh--a pre-merger NFL franchise).
January 28th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@Joseph
I too live in Mexico and, although I do have cable, and thus 3 more games on Sundays, plus the MNF game, I feel your pain. I often am listening to the Bears game over the web as well.
As for the kneeldowns, doesn't DVOA take those out when calculating their stats?