Super Bowl II discussion

7DnBrnc53
Posts: 1489
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by 7DnBrnc53 »

The 1979 Steelers were awfully lucky they didn't have to travel to San Diego for the AFC Championship game. I think it would have been a great game but I think San Diego would have pulled it out.
Maybe, but in 1979 and 80, the Chargers seemed to have a tendency to come up short in the postseason at home. They lost to Houston (in 79), probably should have lost to Buffalo (1980 AFC Div.), and they lost to the Raiders (1980 AFCC). Also, the Steelers would have been motivated by the way they played there earlier that year, so I see Pittsburgh going out there and taking it.
The Steelers did have their share of luck in the postseason, getting two home games in 1972, including the AFC Championship against Miami, and avoiding Miami in the 1973 and 1974 playoffs (although they did have to face Oakland on the road both years, who were just as tough).
If the Steelers and Miami meet in the 1974 AFC Title Game (one of the best games never played, BTW), the Steelers would have hosted it. The AFC West was at the top of the rotation list, and the Central was #2. Like 1971, the East wasn't supposed to host any playoff games (the Dolphins only hosted the AFCC because they played the WC Colts. If Cleveland would have won over Baltimore, they get the Fins in Municipal the next week).
L.C. Greenwood
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:53 am

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by L.C. Greenwood »

The 1974 Dolphins weren't quite at the level of the 1972-73 teams, while the 1974 Steelers were ascending. Whether the game was held in Pittsburgh or Miami, I just don't see the Dolphins having enough, after seeing what the Steelers did to the Raiders in Oakland. The effects of the '74 draft were already being felt, as Lambert, Swann, and Stallworth were making significant contributions. I think the Dolphins have major difficulties moving the ball, and their defense would eventually break down.
Jay Z
Posts: 1025
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by Jay Z »

L.C. Greenwood wrote:The 1974 Dolphins weren't quite at the level of the 1972-73 teams, while the 1974 Steelers were ascending. Whether the game was held in Pittsburgh or Miami, I just don't see the Dolphins having enough, after seeing what the Steelers did to the Raiders in Oakland. The effects of the '74 draft were already being felt, as Lambert, Swann, and Stallworth were making significant contributions. I think the Dolphins have major difficulties moving the ball, and their defense would eventually break down.
If the playoffs had been by record, as they would be a year later, the Steelers would have had to go to Miami, then Oakland, to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe a tough game with the Dolphins wears them down for the Raiders, while the Raiders are winning easily hosting Buffalo?

The Steelers did get the best of the goofy rotation schedule of the time:

1972 - Hosted Oakland, as they would under post-1974 schedule. However, AFC Championship game was at Pittsburgh when it should have been at Miami.
1973 - As the wildcard, they get to play the weakest of the division champions. Central Division champion Cincinnati got a tougher game than the wildcard did?
1974 - As the division champ with the lowest record, still got to host the wild card game. As has been said by others, would have hosted the AFC Championship too had they played Miami.
1975 - Have the best record in the AFC... and the NFL switches to a record based system.

Other teams were not so lucky. The Rams had to go on the road in the playoffs in 1967 and 1969. 1967 they had a better record than the Packers. 1969 they were 11-0, could have gone undefeated, still would have to go on the road anyway. Then in 1973 they are 12-2 and have to play at 10-4 Dallas. In 1974 they beat the Vikings, both teams at 10-4, and the NFC Championship is in Minnesota anyway. The breaks did not even out under that system.

As for the Chargers, they beat the Steelers in 1979 regular season. Also 1980 regular season, when the Steelers had to win to make the playoffs. And 1982 playoffs in Pittsburgh. Maybe they matched up better against the Steelers than other teams.
SixtiesFan
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by SixtiesFan »

Jay Z wrote:
L.C. Greenwood wrote:The 1974 Dolphins weren't quite at the level of the 1972-73 teams, while the 1974 Steelers were ascending. Whether the game was held in Pittsburgh or Miami, I just don't see the Dolphins having enough, after seeing what the Steelers did to the Raiders in Oakland. The effects of the '74 draft were already being felt, as Lambert, Swann, and Stallworth were making significant contributions. I think the Dolphins have major difficulties moving the ball, and their defense would eventually break down.
If the playoffs had been by record, as they would be a year later, the Steelers would have had to go to Miami, then Oakland, to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe a tough game with the Dolphins wears them down for the Raiders, while the Raiders are winning easily hosting Buffalo?

The Steelers did get the best of the goofy rotation schedule of the time:

1972 - Hosted Oakland, as they would under post-1974 schedule. However, AFC Championship game was at Pittsburgh when it should have been at Miami.
1973 - As the wildcard, they get to play the weakest of the division champions. Central Division champion Cincinnati got a tougher game than the wildcard did?
1974 - As the division champ with the lowest record, still got to host the wild card game. As has been said by others, would have hosted the AFC Championship too had they played Miami.
1975 - Have the best record in the AFC... and the NFL switches to a record based system.

Other teams were not so lucky. The Rams had to go on the road in the playoffs in 1967 and 1969. 1967 they had a better record than the Packers. 1969 they were 11-0, could have gone undefeated, still would have to go on the road anyway. Then in 1973 they are 12-2 and have to play at 10-4 Dallas. In 1974 they beat the Vikings, both teams at 10-4, and the NFC Championship is in Minnesota anyway. The breaks did not even out under that system.

As for the Chargers, they beat the Steelers in 1979 regular season. Also 1980 regular season, when the Steelers had to win to make the playoffs. And 1982 playoffs in Pittsburgh. Maybe they matched up better against the Steelers than other teams.
The Great Teams/Great Years book on the Rams pointed out George Allen never got a break on the playoff scheduling in 1967 and 1969. They had to play on the road in freezing cold weather both times. And the seeding of the early 70's didn't help the Rams in 1973-74 either.
L.C. Greenwood
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:53 am

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by L.C. Greenwood »

If the playoffs had been by record, as they would be a year later, the Steelers would have had to go to Miami, then Oakland, to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe a tough game with the Dolphins wears them down for the Raiders, while the Raiders are winning easily hosting Buffalo?

The Steelers did get the best of the goofy rotation schedule of the time:

1972 - Hosted Oakland, as they would under post-1974 schedule. However, AFC Championship game was at Pittsburgh when it should have been at Miami.
1973 - As the wildcard, they get to play the weakest of the division champions. Central Division champion Cincinnati got a tougher game than the wildcard did?
1974 - As the division champ with the lowest record, still got to host the wild card game. As has been said by others, would have hosted the AFC Championship too had they played Miami.
1975 - Have the best record in the AFC... and the NFL switches to a record based system.

Other teams were not so lucky. The Rams had to go on the road in the playoffs in 1967 and 1969. 1967 they had a better record than the Packers. 1969 they were 11-0, could have gone undefeated, still would have to go on the road anyway. Then in 1973 they are 12-2 and have to play at 10-4 Dallas. In 1974 they beat the Vikings, both teams at 10-4, and the NFC Championship is in Minnesota anyway. The breaks did not even out under that system.

As for the Chargers, they beat the Steelers in 1979 regular season. Also 1980 regular season, when the Steelers had to win to make the playoffs. And 1982 playoffs in Pittsburgh. Maybe they matched up better against the Steelers than other teams.[/quote]


The NFL's postseason system cuts both ways. The 2011 Steelers had to travel to Denver without Ryan Clark to play a Broncos team with a worse record. I think if we broke it down, it would be a wash. We should also remember SB 14 was played at the Rose Bowl, in the backyard of the LA Rams.

Regarding the 1974 AFC playoffs, the Buffalo Bills were no slouch with O.J. Simpson. The Steelers had a convincing win over that Raiders team in Oakland, I don't think traveling to Miami would have been an issue had the Dolphins pulled out the Sea of Hands game. Regarding the Chargers and 1979, it would have made an interesting game. The subsequent Charger wins in 1980 and 1982 were over a Steelers team in clear decline. It was shocking to see that '79 Chargers team blow that game against a Houston team minus Earl Campbell and Dan Pastroni. And Dan Fouts played horribly in that game as well. That Chargers team had precious little postseason experience, the next season they hosted the AFC TG, but couldn't finish the deal against the Raiders.
BD Sullivan
Posts: 2318
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by BD Sullivan »

The '74 Bills didn't exactly enter the postseason with a great deal of momentum. They had started the year with a 7-1 record (leading Miami and NE by a game), then went 2-4 the rest of the way. Those two victories came against the 3-7 Browns (15-10) and 2-9 Colts (6-0).
SixtiesFan
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by SixtiesFan »

BD Sullivan wrote:The '74 Bills didn't exactly enter the postseason with a great deal of momentum. They had started the year with a 7-1 record (leading Miami and NE by a game), then went 2-4 the rest of the way. Those two victories came against the 3-7 Browns (15-10) and 2-9 Colts (6-0).
O.J. was banged up in 1974, had 1125 yards rushing with 4.2 average. The year before he had his 2003 yard season. In 1975 he gained 1817 yards rushing along with several long TD pass-run plays and a then record 23 TDs scored.
Some Guy From Mars
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:45 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by Some Guy From Mars »

I'm not all that impressed by the 1978-79 Steelers playing Denver and Houston in the playoffs one year, then Miami and Houston the next year.
I can agreed with this but only up to a certain point. Defeating the defending AFC champions (Denver) and a tough Houston team with a prime Earl Campbell is nothing to sneeze at. The true value of that 78 Steelers team, however can be found in decisively defeating a defending Super Bowl champion Dallas team with a roster laden with Hall of Famers.

Actually, in my opinion the best Steelers team of the era is from 1975. In finishing the regular season 12-2, the 75 Steelers went undefeated in a division that included Cincinnati (11-3) and Houston (10-4). In the post season, they defeated a Baltimore Colts team on a 9 game winning streak and subsequently beat in the AFC Championship and Super Bowl the next two Super Bowl champions in the Raiders and Cowboys, respectively, two teams with Hall of Fame laden rosters.

Taking a close look at the three 75 Steelers post season victories reveals a team that won but did so ugly. Against the Colts, for instance, they turned the ball over 5 times (if QB Bert Jones does not get hurt early on that game could have been scary, at least for Steelers fans). Against the Raiders, they again lose the turnover battle (the Steelers pretty much had the game wrapped up, but a couple of late fumbles by Franco Harris - and more on this later - gave the Raiders new life). I know that the game ended on a long pass from Kenny Stabler to Cliff Branch, but if there was another minute on the clock the outcome could have been different. And who here would not welcome a Raiders vs. Cowboys Super Bowl in the 70's?

Speaking of which, as for the Super Bowl, special team miscues - one missed extra point and two missed field goals from Roy Gerela - on the Steelers part kept that game closer than it should have (not to mention a Glen Edwards dropped pick 6). It could easily have been 35-17 as opposed to 21-17 (and ending with Roger Stauback throwing bombs in the Steeles end zone).

The sloppy play on the Steelers part continued over to the start of the 76 season when it opened on the road against Oakland. Again, the Steelers pretty much had the game wrapped up, leading 28-14 with around 5 minutes to play, when another Franco Harris fumble turned the game around. The Raiders recovered and drove the field for a momentum changing touchdown that led to an exciting 31-28 victory. Also, the normal sure handed Jack Ham dropped a certain pick 6- that is unless you think gimpy knee Ken Stabler is going to catch Ham. As we all know, Steelers in 76 did not start playing up to their potential until after they started the season 1-4.
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

I guess I should change the name of this thread to “Lombardi’s Pack vs ’70s Steelers and other great teams from that decade”, lol.
Some Guy From Mars
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:45 pm

Re: Super Bowl II discussion

Post by Some Guy From Mars »

I guess I should change the name of this thread to “Lombardi’s Pack vs ’70s Steelers and other great teams from that decade”, lol.
OK, let's further play upon that theme, but it might not be entirely fair to match the 78 and 79 Steelers against Lombardi's Packers due to the 'five-yard bump rule' (aka the' Mel Blount rule') implemented for the 78 season. What rules do Lombardi's Packers play under- pre or post 78?

That is why I feel it is best to match either the 74 or 75 Steelers teams against the best Lombardi Packers team due to both playing in the same era. First, I might discount the 67 team - at least compared to the 66 juggernaut - due to regressing on defense (the 67 team surrendered 78 points over its final 3 games). I like to favorably compare the 67 Packers to the 79 Steelers and 95 Cowboys as a veteran until that won on guile and experience that was otherwise at then end of the road as far as being a dynasty are concerned. Second, and I am referencing my post from earlier today, it could be said that the 75 Steelers are superior to the 74 equivalent.

So here we go: 66 Packers vs. 75 Steelers

Steelers on Offense:
Despite the offensive accolades going to the 78 and 79 teams, and rightly so, it could be said that in 75, Terry Bradshaw (88.0 QB rating), Franco Harris (1246 yards rushing & a 4.8 Y/A) and Lynn Swann (49 receptions & 11 TDs) had career years. As already pointed out, John Stallworth did not begin to come into his own until 1977. That is a lot of firepower, but it could also be said that the 66 Packers would be by far the best defense the Steelers of the 70's faced. That Packers defense was wicked good and deep when factoring Hall of Famers Ray Nitschke, Herb Adderley,Willie Davis, Willie Wood, Henry Jordan and Dave Robinson (for those keeping count- that is more Hall of Famers than the vaunted Steel Curtain- 6 to 4).

Advantage: Packers

Packers on Offense
This is where things get dicey- at least as far as the Packers are concerned in that in 66 they potentially lacked the team speed to adequately challenge the Steelers. Jim Taylor, for instance, was on the downside of his career (705 yards and only 3.5 Y/A), while with the possible exception of Carroll Dale, lacked the type of deep threat to stretch the field along similar lines as Cliff Branch (Raiders), Isaac Curtis (Bengals) and Ken Burrough (Oilers), all of whom the Steelers faced multiple times each year. Defensively, the Steel Curtain could potentially shut the 66 Packers down (at least on the ground), but do not downplay an all time great season (at least when factoring the era) from Bart Starr, whom completed 62.2% of his passes and threw only 3 interceptions (in compiling a 105.0 QR). Still, put Mel Blount on Dale and the Packers might challenge to move the ball downfield.

Advantage: Steelers

So how does this play out?

I imagine a hard hitting defensive struggle in which either offense struggles to gain any type of momentum. Length of the field drives might potentially be the rare exception and not the norm. Rather, it could boil down to a battle over field position and turnovers- more specifically who generates the turnovers and where they happen. That Packers team was not in the habit of turning the ball over, but imagine a strip sack of Starr deep in Packers territory (recovered by LC Greenwood) and the Steelers would be in business for either a game changing touchdown or chip shot field goal (actually, I take that back in that nothing is 'chip shot' where Steelers kicker Roy Gerela is concerned).

As noted in my previous post, the 75 Steelers where prone to turnovers (at least in the playoffs that year) and this is the hinge where the game might turn. Imagine the Steelers are facing third and 1 at its own 20 yard line and Franco Harris fumbles on an off tackle trap play, which Nitschke falls on. On its subsequent offensive play, Starr on play action finds Boyd Dowlerat the back of the end zone.

The point being that the Steelers are going to have to beat the Packers- those Lombardi Packers teams are not going to beat themselves. Hence, if the Steelers played sloppily like they did in the 75 post season and lose the turnover battle, I can see them easily losing 13 to 17. On the other hand, if the 75 Steelers take care of the ball and play smart on special teams,I can see them winning the field position battle, and as the game goes on, wearing down the Packers and culminating with a hard fought 13 to 7 victory.
Post Reply