Could any AFL team have beaten GB in Super Bowl 1 or 2?

[Saban1]

Here is another question. How much better do you think Lombardi could have made the '68 Packers? THe Pack was clearly past its prime by the late '60's. Even the '67 team had their struggles but the experience seemed to pay off in the playoffs that year. It would have only continued to get worse if Lombardi coached them past that point. I think the '68 Packers still would have had a decent chance to win the division as the Vikings, Bears, and Packers were all right around the .500 mark but I think a playoff game against the Colts could have gotten ugly for them.

By the '69 season they don't win the division regardless if Lombardi is coaching or not.

I think that the Packers win the NFL Central Division if Lombardi was still coaching them. In 1968, Coach Bengsten had a much easier training camp than in previous years. Vince put the team through tough training camps, and I think that made the team better. Anyway, Lombardi was doing something right. I agree that they probably would not beat the Colts in the 1968 playoffs, and the game would have been in Baltimore.

In 1969, the Vikings were about as good as the Colts were in 1968, and thus would likely have won their division and gone to the Super Bowl.

[BD Sullivan]

I think that the Packers win the NFL Central Division if Lombardi was still coaching them. In 1968, Coach Bengsten had a much easier training camp than in previous years. Vince put the team through tough training camps, and I think that made the team better. Anyway, Lombardi was doing something right. I agree that they probably would not beat the Colts in the 1968 playoffs, and the game would have been in Baltimore.

In 1969, the Vikings were about as good as the Colts were in 1968, as thus would likely have won their division and gone to the Super Bowl.

That 1968 playoff game was played in the rain, so perhaps Anderson and Grabowski put together a strong game and come away with a victory much like the 65 title win. In Week 13 of that year, they did hold the Colts to one touchdown. The problem was that they could only muster a FG in a 16-3 loss, in part because Starr didn't play. It didn't help that the Colts forced four turnovers (leading to 13 points), including two fumbles by Anderson--who also had a four-yard punt.

Early in the fourth quarter, the Pack had a chance to cut the margin to six at 16-10, but were stopped at the Colt 7 on downs. Of course, the Colts defense had been on a mission since giving up 30 points in their loss to the Browns. In the next six games leading up to the Packer game, they allowed a total of 29 points!

The Pack finished 6-7-1, but had three games in which they lost by four points or less, as well as the tie. In FantasyLand, turning just two of those losses gives them the division by a half-game. If they somehow manage to knock off the Colts, do they have enough to defeat the Browns, who had pulled off their own upset over the Cowboys?

In 1969, the Vikings realistically could have gone undefeated, since their two losses came in the opener, when they collapsed down the stretch and in a regular season finale "Who Cares?" performance in an Atlanta swamp.

[Saban1]

I just want to say that the 1967 Green Bay Packers' record of 9-4-1 is misleading. They lost to the Colts and Rams as a result of miracle finishes and they lost to Pittsburgh in a "who cares" regular season final game when their division was clinched.

Sounds like I was a Green Bay fan, but I was not. I was a Cleveland Browns fan, but I have to admit that the Packers were a great team and was definitely the team of the 60's decade.

I will say this: Green Bay did have the advantage in their playoff game against the Rams that year. Not just the home field, but more the fact that the Rams had their win or else game with the Baltimore Colts the week before the Packers/Rams playoff game, which probably took something out of the Rams. Of course, Green Bay might have won the playoff game anyway.

[SixtiesFan]

Also what would it do to Lombardi's legacy to lose one of those first two Super Bowls?

I recall a reported comment from Rozelle about the Super Bowl III loss that took a shot at Shula by saying, "Lombardi wouldn't have lost it."

After Super Bowl III, NFL partisans were saying that very thing. I remember a radio talk show had somebody say "I really missed the Packers," in reference to the Colts performance.

[SixtiesFan]

I just want to say that the 1967 Green Bay Packers' record of 9-4-1 is misleading. They lost to the Colts and Rams as a result of miracle finishes and they lost to Pittsburgh in a "who cares" regular season final game when their division was clinched.

Sounds like I was a Green Bay fan, but I was not. I was a Cleveland Browns fan, but I have to admit that the Packers were a great team and was definitely the team of the 60's decade.

I will say this: Green Bay did have the advantage in their playoff game against the Rams that year. Not just the home field, but more the fact that the Rams had their win or else game with the Baltimore Colts the week before the Packers/Rams playoff game, which probably took something out of the Rams. Of course, Green Bay might have won the playoff game anyway.

Speaking of the Rams, they never got a break on the playoff seeding in 1967 and 1969. Both times they had to play at cold weather sites. At that time it didn't depend on the won-loss record.

[lastcat3]

I just want to say that the 1967 Green Bay Packers' record of 9-4-1 is misleading. They lost to the Colts and Rams as a result of miracle finishes and they lost to Pittsburgh in a "who cares" regular season final game when their division was clinched.

Sounds like I was a Green Bay fan, but I was not. I was a Cleveland Browns fan, but I have to admit that the Packers were a great team and was definitely the team of the 60's decade.

I will say this: Green Bay did have the advantage in their playoff game against the Rams that year. Not just the home field, but more the fact that the Rams had their win or else game with the Baltimore Colts the week before the Packers/Rams playoff game, which probably took something out of the Rams. Of course, Green Bay might have won the playoff game anyway.

Speaking of the Rams, they never got a break on the playoff seeding in 1967 and 1969. Both times they had to play at cold weather sites. At that time it didn't depend on the won-loss record.

Yeah in '69 the Vikings had the better record so they should have had the home game anyways. In '67 though not only did the Rams have a better record than the Packers but they also beat the Pack in the regular season. Not saying they would have beat the Packers in the post season but the Rams really should have gotten the home game in the playoffs that year.

[Saban1]

Before the 70's, the NFL rotated home field for championship games and playoff games. The Cleveland Browns only lost one game in both 1951 and 1953, but had to play in the other teams ballparks in the championship games and lost both games, 24 to 17 in 1951 and 17 to 16 in 1953.

[BD Sullivan]

Yeah in '69 the Vikings had the better record so they should have had the home game anyways. In '67 though not only did the Rams have a better record than the Packers but they also beat the Pack in the regular season. Not saying they would have beat the Packers in the post season but the Rams really should have gotten the home game in the playoffs that year.

Had they gone by actual records in 69, the first round would have had the Browns at Minnesota and the Rams at Dallas.

FWIW, here are 67 and 68, also going strictly by records:

67
Browns at Rams
Cowboys at Packers--in "normal weather" as opposed to the Ice Bowl

68
Only change would have been the Browns playing in Dallas instead of hosting.

[Bryan]

Despite their excellent record, none of the Colts' defenders would make the HOF. Six of the Packers are now in.

-I don't care how the '68 Jets would have done against the '67 Packers (different teams, different years) but I'm certain that the Jets wouldn't beat the '68 Colts in a rematch or even multiple rematches. The Colts were clearly a better team than the Jets but on any given Sunday...

The 68 Colts MO was to take an early lead, get you to abandon the running game, and try passing against their blitzes and zones. When the Browns beat the Colts during the year, they had a 21-7 lead in the 2nd half and Leroy Kelly wound up with 130 yards rushing. The Rams played them close in a 28-24 loss, and Willie Ellison went over 100 yards. But the majority of the time opposing offense wouldn't stick with the run against the Colts defense. Chuck Noll was the DB coach and the Colts were known for their zones and their alleged 9 man blitzes. Shinnick and Boyd were defenders who, at that stage of their careers, could only excel in a zone defense. Logan and Volk were excellent safeties. Bubba Smith was all-world, Ordell Braase was good at getting to the QB but (obviously) not the strongest at the point of attack. It seemed like the Colts defensive success was partly talent, but also partly scheme. Opposing QBs had 9 TDs vs. 29 INTs and 45 sacks with a passer rating of 47.5. The Colts defense came very close to having the most passes attempted against them (432) and also allowing the fewest TD passes (9), which would have been somewhat incredible.

The "flow" of SB III did not work in the Colts favor. They had two missed FGs and two passes intercepted in the end zone in the first half. A typical Colts game would have seen them go up on the Jets 20-7 at half and then build on that lead in the 2nd half. But the Jets were never trailing, and I don't think Namath even attempted a pass in the 4th period.

The question of the Jets winning a rematch is interesting. The Jets remained a strong team in 1969, but both the Chiefs and the Raiders improved themselves and were probably a bit stronger overall. The Colts weren't nearly as tough in 1969. Noll left the staff to take the Steelers job, and the pass defense got worse by nearly a factor of 100%, with their opponent passer rating rising to 84.0. After allowing 9 TD passes in 1968, the Colts allowed 7 TDs in week 2 to Joe Kapp. In week 1, they gave up 3 TD passes to Roman Gabriel, so within 2 games the 1969 Colts gave up more TD passes than they did in the entire 1968 season. I think if the Colts were really that superior to the Jets, they wouldn't have fallen off a cliff in 1969.

[Bryan]

The team with the best chance, IMO, would have been the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl II. They had already played the Packers in Super Bowl I and might have learned from that game. Anyway, they were the best team in the AFL, outside of Oakland, in 1967.

Not saying here that they would have beaten Green Bay in Super Bowl II. Just saying that they were the AFL team with the best chance to beat the Pack in one of the first 2 Super Bowls.

I agree with this. Raiders were kind of hamstrung in SB II with Clem Daniels being out with injury and Warren Wells not really 'on the scene' yet (Bill Miller 2 TDs, though). The Raiders offensive line was manhandled by Jordan and Davis, and Nitschke wiped out their sweeps. Perhaps the Chiefs/Stram would have come up with something different in SB II.