Super Bowls 1-50

[Town Heretic]

I thought it might be fun to take a look at the Super Bowls from the beginning to the looming number 50.

Note that the first 14 SBs were played at the end of 14 game seasons.

I'm going to take these in groups of five and leave this first post to list the biggest upsets, most potent offenses and defenses after I run through the games. And since this will hopefully stir a little conversation I'll post a link and post number for each five here as well. Likely first.

1-5 Post #2
6-10 Post #8 (link)
11-15 Post #37 (link)
16-20 Post #39 (link)
21-25 Post #42 (link)
26-30 Post #45 (link)
31-35 Post #51 (link)
36-40 Post #54 (link)
41-45 Post #57 (link)
46-50 Post #61 (link)

 

[Town Heretic]

1 - 5​

1. KC 10, GB 35

KC PF 32, PA 19.7
GB PF 23.9 PA 11.6
Line: GB 14

A bit of a surprise, because the Chiefs entered the contest averaging 32 and giving up 19.7 while the defensive minded Packers managed 23.9 and gave up a scant 11.6. Essentially the game should have been a pick'em, fg contest. Instead it was a 25 point blow out.


2. GB 33, Oak 14

GB PF 23.7 PA 14.9
Oak PF 33.4 PA 16.6
Line: GB 13.5

Continuing the upset trend, Oakland came in scoring around ten points more per game than Green Bay while giving up around two more points on average, a statistical eight point favorite. The end result was a 27 point turnaround by the Pack, likely beginning the idea that defense wins championships.


3. Jets 16, Bal 7

Jets PF 29.9, PA 20
Bal PF 28.7, PA 10.3
Line: Bal 18

This game had a few noteworthy Baltimore players holding on to the notion that the fix was in. The Jets called for the upset, but how big an upset was it, really? New York had averaged 30 pts, giving up 20. Baltimore averaged 29 pts and gave up an astounding 10 a game. So you can see why Colts fans thought they had it. But while it was an upset, it was actually, statistically, the least surprising outcome of the three SBs as an 18 pt upset.


4. Min 7, KC 23

Min PF 27.1, PA 9.5
KC PF 25.6, PA 12.6
Line: Min 12.5

Strangely, you didn't hear that recrimination from the Vikings, who brought an even better defense (9.5) and as good an offense (27.1). The Chiefs had tapered on offense (25.6) but had a much improved defense from their first run (12.6). The end result, a 20 point upset against average by the triumphant Chiefs.


5. Bal 16, Dal 13

Bal PF 22.9, PA 16.7
Dal PF 21.4, PA 15.8
Line: Dal 2.5

The Colts came after revenge against the emerging Dallas Cowboys. The teams were statistically a fair match, with Baltimore holding a half point advantage that became a 2.5 better win (Bal 28.7/10.3 and Dal 21.4/16.7).


And that's our first five. More to follow.

 

[The Berean]

We must remember that in the 1960's there was the NFL and AFL. That the Chiefs scored more points than the Packers doesn't really mean much since they played in diferent leagues against completely different opponents. I think the AFL was still trying to catch up to the NFL in terms of overall football talent level. Also the 1960's Packers are one of pro football's greatest dynasties. Most football fans today have zero knoweldge or appreciation for the pre Super Bowl NFL history so most don't really know how dominant the Packers were in the 1960's. The Packers were NFL champions in 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, and 1967 plus winning the first two Super Bowls. In 1963 the Packers were 11-2-1 and finished a half game behind the 11-1-2 Chicago Bears. No other NFL team has ever won five championships in seven years nor have won three straight championships. That the Packers crushed the Chiefs and Raiders in the first two Super Bowls is not surprising. The Packers were far superior to the Chiefs and Raiders.

 

[Town Heretic]

We must remember that in the 1960's there was the NFL and AFL. That the Chiefs scored more points than the Packers doesn't really mean much since they played in diferent leagues against completely different opponents.

Couldn't agree more. A bit like the old ABA. Offense at a premium.

I think the AFL was still trying to catch up to the NFL in terms of overall football talent level.

I'm not as sure about that, given how quickly they were competitive in the SB. Maybe the early Pack was just that much better in a big game. It happens. Certainly the Baltimore Colts, who posted a better defense and offense within the same league as the Pack and followed on their heels argues against a conference superiority, though Green Bay and its coach advanced that early on. A convoluted way of saying the Pack was just that good (and, as you note, had been for a while).

Also the 1960's Packers are one of pro football's greatest dynasties. Most football fans today have zero knoweldge or appreciation for the pre Super Bowl NFL history so most don't really know how dominant the Packers were in the 1960's.

Yep. And I think that has much more to do with it than leagues, though KC did seem to learn a lesson and toughened their defense a good bit in route to their title.

 

[Nick M]

No other NFL team has ever won five championships in seven years nor have won three straight championships. That the Packers crushed the Chiefs and Raiders in the first two Super Bowls is not surprising. The Packers were far superior to the Chiefs and Raiders.

Tet's Browns won 6 in a row in two different leagues. In fact, they played in 10 straight championship games winning 7 times. But we both know the NFL started with 1st Super Bowl. I had to crip Wikipedia for that info.

 

[The Berean]

I'm not as sure about that, given how quickly they were competitive in the SB. Maybe the early Pack was just that much better in a big game. It happens. Certainly the Baltimore Colts, who posted a better defense and offense within the same league as the Pack and followed on their heels argues against a conference superiority, though Green Bay and its coach advanced that early on.

I think there were three things are at work here:

1) The Packers were simply an all-time great football team that no NFL or AFL team was going to beat. They had a slew of Hall of Famers and the team was battled hardened and experienced.

2) The AFL started to pay top dollar (see Joe Namath) and this led to a rather qiuck influx of top footbal talent into the AFL.

3) The Jets and Chiefs (Super Bowl IV version) were stronger teams than the Chiefs (Super Bowl I version) and Raiders. Though most people credit Namath for the Jets win, Namath had just an ok game (0 TD passes). This was the season that Namath passed for 4,000 yards and led the AFL in bunch of AFL passing catagories. The Jets defense was the major reason they won Super Bowl III.

Yep. And I think that has much more to do with it than leagues, though KC did seem to learn a lesson and toughened their defense a good bit in route to their title.

I agree.

 

[The Berean]

Tet's Browns won 6 in a row in two different leagues. In fact, they played in 10 straight championship games winning 7 times. But we both know the NFL started with 1st Super Bowl. I had to crip Wikipedia for that info.

I forgot about the Browns. They certainly had a great run. The 1948 Browns team was actually pro football's first perfect season (15-0). But the NFL refuses to acknowledge this perfect season which I think is ridiculous.

 

[Town Heretic]

6-10
(1972-1976)​

6. Dal 24, Mia 3

Dallas was the slightly better team, statistically, going in, scoring an average of 29 and allowing right at 16 per game. Miami scored 24 per game and gave up around 15.6. So a fg separation...until kickoff. Then it was another case of exceeding expectations, this time by about 21 pts.
Dal PF 29, PA 16
Mia PF 24, PA 15.6
Line: Dal 6


7. Mia 14, Was 7

This one turned out about as it should have. Miami had improved offensively from the year before (27.5) and were about as strong defensively (12.2). Washington scored fewer (24) and allowed more (15.6) than their opponent. The margin was about 7 and that was the actual difference. Son of a gun.
Mia PF 27.5, PA 12.1
Was PF 24, PA 15.6
Line: Mia 1


8. Min 7, Mia 24

The Fins looked to be the first repeat champions since the Packers started it off. Their offense was off a little over the prior year (24.5) but their defense was the best they'd fielded (10.7) and the third best to play in the SB to that point, statistically. Min was weaker on both sides of the ball (21.1 and 12, respectively). The margin was around 5 pts and the stronger team prevailed by an additional 12.

Min PF 21.1, PA 12
Mia PF 24.5, PA 10.7
Line: Mia 6.5


9. Pit 16, Min 6

The Vikings returned for another loss despite being a strong relative contender on paper. Min's Points For (hereafter PF) was 22.1 and the Points Allowed came in at 13.9. The Steelers PF was 21.8 and their PA was 13.5. Or, the Vikings stood to be a half point favorite before losing by 10 ending for a -10.5 failure.

Pit PF 21.8, PA 13.5
Min PF 22.1, PA 13.9
Line: Pit 3


10. Dal 17, Pit 21

The Steelers bid to repeat saw them marginally ahead as an offensive unit, but carrying a pronounced defensive edge. Pit's PF: 26.6, PA: 11.6, compared to the Cowboys' PF: 25, PA: 19.1. So the Steelers were a 9 pt favorite but managed only a 4 pt victory, making them the first of the victors to go into the minus, statistically, at -5 under expectations. Teams of that disappointment were undoubtedly collected in the victor's cup.
Dal PF 25, PA 19.1
Pit PF 26.6 PA 11.6
Line: Pit 7

Next up: 11-15

 

[The Berean]

Here a good and fair assessment of the 1960's Packers by a football "historian".

http://www.packers.com/media-center...-dynasty/26ea2262-6de5-48b6-974a-9d48764d5557

 

[The Berean]

6-11
(1971-1975)​

7. Mia 14, Was 7

This one turned out about as it should have. Miami had improved offensively from the year before (27.5) and were about as strong defensively (12.2). Washington scored fewer (24) and allowed more (15.6) than their opponent. The margin was about 7 and that was the actual difference. Son of a gun.

The most crazy thing about this Super Bowl was that the Redskins were actually one point favorites! This was due to the perception that the Dolphins played a weak regular season schedule.

 

[Town Heretic]

The most crazy thing about this Super Bowl was that the Redskins were actually one point favorites! This was due to the perception that the Dolphins played a weak regular season schedule.

That sort of feeds into the current narrative with Carolina, though it doesn't seem to have as much impact, given the statistical difference would have it a rough 8 point advantage for the Panthers, who are a current 6 point favorite to win their first championship.

 

[quip]

That sort of feeds into the current narrative with Carolina, though it doesn't seem to have as much impact, given the statistical difference would have it a rough 8 point advantage for the Panthers, who are a current 6 point favorite to win their first championship.

Mia 14, Was 7

Yep! they grow up fast! :chuckle:



Does anyone else believe/hope that Superbowl L ushers in a changing of the guard...The emergence of Cam as the new NFL-QB standard, as the sun sets on Peyton? (and perhaps Brady and company, as well?)

Heart says: "Hope Peyton wins this last one before he goes"....Head says: "Nope."

 

[Town Heretic]

Yep! they grow up fast! :chuckle:

Dork. :chuckle:

Does anyone else believe/hope that Superbowl L ushers in a changing of the guard...The emergence of Cam as the new NFL-QB standard, as the sun sets on Peyton? (and perhaps Brady and company, as well?)

I think Cam has already ushered himself in with his growth at the position and accomplishments this year. Only a year or so ago a lot of talking heads at ESPN and elsewhere were beginning to wonder.

And not without reason. As an impact player, you can't fault him...but until this year there was reason to wonder if he was going to be more than a solid but not great qb.

2011: 4051 yds, 7.8 avg, 60.0% comp, 21 td - 17 ints, 88.3 rating
2012: 3869 yds, 8.0 avg, 57.7% comp, 19 td - 12 ints, 84.5 rating
2013: 3379 yds, 7.1 avg, 61.7% comp, 24 td - 13 int, 88.8 rating
2014: 3127 yds, 7.0 avg, 58.5% comp, 18 td - 12 int, 99.4 rating

Is this his step into the elite or an exception? I hope the former.

Heart says: "Hope Peyton wins this last one before he goes"....Head says: "Nope."

Elway did it with smoke and mirrors and will at the end. I think Peyton has more in his tank and wants this one about as badly as you can. I wouldn't count them out. I think everyone was afraid of that Seattle team in a way that just isn't translating to the Panthers.

Time will tell. I hope he wins a close one, mostly on defense, but contributing in a meaningful way then waves to the crowd and hands it to an able successor...unless he plays a great game. Then I want another year.

 

[tetelestai]

The Packers were NFL champions in 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, and 1967 plus winning the first two Super Bowls.

There were only 14 teams in the NFL in 1961, and there wasn't unrestricted free agency, and salary caps.

Therefore, when a team was good, it remained good.

It's why the Canadians won 16 championships in 25 years. The NHL only had 6 teams during those 25 years, no free agency, and no salary caps.

The Steelers won 4 championships in 6 years when there were 26 and 28 teams, and Plan B Free Agency.

IMO, it's a lot harder to win 4 of 6 against 28 teams, then 5 of 7 against 14 teams.

 

[Nick M]

I think Denver was very close to winning 3 straight NFL titles except for the problem of Tom Coughlin owning Mike Shanahan's soul. And Favre would be in the same boat as Marino. Except Marino is better and I would take him in a second over Favre.

 

[tetelestai]

I thought it might be fun to take a look at the Super Bowls from the beginning to the looming number 50.

Just don't forget to mention that no teams owns as many Lombardi Trophies as the Steelers

 

[tetelestai]

IMO, the two best two Super Bowls were last years Super Bowl, and Super Bowl XIII

Both Super Bowls involved the previous Super Bowl winner against a QB who had previously won multiple Super Bowls.

Last year the reigning Super Bowl Champion Seahawks lost to Tom Brady who had previously won 3 Super Bowls.

In 1978, the reigning Super Bowl Champion Cowboys lost to Terry Bradshaw who had previously won 2 Super Bowls.

Only two other times have the reigning Super Bowl Champions lost. The 1984 Redskins lost to the Raiders, and the 1998 Packers lost to the Broncos. However, neither team that won had a QB with multiple rings.

Bradshaw, Montana, and Brady have 4 rings, but Montana never had to face a reigning Super Bowl Champion like Bradshaw and Brady did.

 

[The Berean]

There were only 14 teams in the NFL in 1961, and there wasn't unrestricted free agency, and salary cap.

Therefore, when a team was good, it remained good.

It's why the Canadians won 16 championships in 25 years. The NHL only had 6 teams during those 25 years, no free agency, and no salary caps.

The Steelers won 4 championships in 6 years when there were 26 and 28 teams, and Plan B Free Agency.

IMO, it's a lot harder to win 4 of 6 against 28 teams, then 5 of 7 against 14 teams.

That's not necessarily so. When you have more teams the quality of a league goes down becasue the talent is spread out. Expansion always dilutes the talent pool. So if a smart team drafts well they can dominate because there are more crappy teams to beat up. Look how many crappy teams there are in the NFL today?

 

[tetelestai]

That's not necessarily so. When you have more teams the quality of a league goes down becasue the talent is spread out. Expansion always dilutes the talent pool.

That's my point.

When you have parity, you have less chance of dynasties.

So if a smart team drafts well they can dominate because there are more crappy teams to beat up. Look how many crappy teams there are in the NFL today?

Yes, but the crappy teams get the top draft picks.

Both the 60's Packers and 70's Steelers were built on the draft.

However, with 14 teams, the Packers would have two of the best college players in the first two rounds, whereas the Steelers would have one with the 28th pick.

It's not the 60's Packers fault they played when they did. They dominated the 60's, but if they had to do it against 32 teams, a salary cap, unrestricted free agency, and winning at least 3 games each post-season (they only had to win 1) there ain't no way they win 5 in 7 years.

The Patriots have somehow figured out how to master the current system like no other team.

 

[The Berean]

I think Denver was very close to winning 3 straight NFL titles except for the problem of Tom Coughlin owning Mike Shanahan's soul. And Favre would be in the same boat as Marino. Except Marino is better and I would take him in a second over Favre.

I think the tet can speak more to this but the 1976 Steelers had an awesome club. They had five shotouts and two other games where they allowed just three points. Over their final eight games they allowed just 19 points total! I think they had some injuries late in the season and they lost to the Raiders in the AFC title game. Had they been at full strength perhaps they win a third straight Super Bowl.

The 1990-91 49ers were 14-2. The led the NY Giants 13-12 in the final three minutes of the NFC title game. With about 2:40 left the 49ers had the ball on the Giants 40 yard trying to run out the clock or maybe get close enough to kick a field goal. On a running play Roger Craig fumbles the ball and the Giants recover. The Giants march down and kick the winning field goal and go on to beat the Bills in the Super Bowl. I have no doubt in my mind had the 49ers reached the Super Bowl they would have won their third straight Super Bowl.