Icky Super Bowls

[Bob Gill]

Good calls on the Raiders dismantling the Redskins ... It was not only surprising seeing the Raiders pass rush having their way with the Hogs but you would think the Redskins would have found more creative ways to take advantage of the Raider linebackers in coverage but they never seemed to go back to Joe Washington. Art Monk was usually big in postseason games for the Skins but even he couldnt get untracked. The secondary coverage and Charlie Sumner's defensive gameplan were flawless while Plunkett and Allen played turnover-free football.

Yes, I think the Raiders' coverage, especially by Lester Hayes and Mike Haynes, was really what won the game for them. The Redskins didn't believe anybody could get away with single coverage on Monk AND Charlie Brown, but H & H did the job, and that made the eight-men-in-the-box defensive scheme work. If I'd been in charge of the MVP for that game, I would've made Hayes and Haynes the co-winners. Instead, they gave it to Marcus Allen, who got almost half of his yardage on a single play that changed the score from 28-9 to 35-9 -- not exactly a game-changer.

[Brian wolf]

Great call Bob ... I thought that myself about H&H but I felt Plunkett ran the offense well before Allen broke the game open. A tough call ...

[JuggernautJ]

Shouldn't the Icky-est Super Bowl be the one in which an Ickey actually played??

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 220cin.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... odIc00.htm

Although, as a 49ers fan I was kind of happy about the un-icky finish...

[Bryan]

Shouldn't the Icky-est Super Bowl be the one in which an Ickey actually played??

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 220cin.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... odIc00.htm

Although, as a 49ers fan I was kind of happy about the un-icky finish...

Ronnie Lott does not appreciate your humor...

[Jay Z]

I think SB IV was a lot better than SB VIII.

SB VIII was great if you want to watch Larry Csonka, and it was a cleanly played game, but just not that much reason to watch it again.

Honestly SB IV displays all of the weaknesses of Bud Grant as a SB coach. You can see it even with players that were younger and more athletic. When the Chiefs are up 3-0 and driving, the Vikings are already getting frustrated. Almost like they are looking to the sidelines for emotional leadership that simply isn't there. So when the Vikings' opponents talk about them being so vanilla, to me it's not the scheme so much as the timid, turtling approach fostered by Bud Grant in his Super Bowl appearances.

Go watch Bud's Vikings in any other non-SB game. They were a creative, resourceful bunch, even when outmanned. I don't think about vanilla schemes when watching those games. I think how did the Vikings win again, how did they pounce on that mistake.

Bud just didn't "get" the bigger stage of the SB and it was reflected by his team. I've seen teams get their butts kicked, but every SB was the same for the Vikings. He's by far the worst coach in Super Bowls. Every other context, he was great.

[SixtiesFan]

I think SB IV was a lot better than SB VIII.

SB VIII was great if you want to watch Larry Csonka, and it was a cleanly played game, but just not that much reason to watch it again.

Honestly SB IV displays all of the weaknesses of Bud Grant as a SB coach. You can see it even with players that were younger and more athletic. When the Chiefs are up 3-0 and driving, the Vikings are already getting frustrated. Almost like they are looking to the sidelines for emotional leadership that simply isn't there. So when the Vikings' opponents talk about them being so vanilla, to me it's not the scheme so much as the timid, turtling approach fostered by Bud Grant in his Super Bowl appearances.

Go watch Bud's Vikings in any other non-SB game. They were a creative, resourceful bunch, even when outmanned. I don't think about vanilla schemes when watching those games. I think how did the Vikings win again, how did they pounce on that mistake.

Bud just didn't "get" the bigger stage of the SB and it was reflected by his team. I've seen teams get their butts kicked, but every SB was the same for the Vikings. He's by far the worst coach in Super Bowls. Every other context, he was great.

In the four Super Bowls Bud Grant's teams lost, the Vikings didn't score a point in the first half in any of the four games.

[racepug]

As with the OP I have lost some interest in the S.B. in the last 30 years, or so. Sometimes I'll watch them in full but that rarely happens for me nowadays.

The first S.B. that I remember watching (and that I have any memories of) is S.B. XII. Nowadays if that particular match-up were to occur I wouldn't even bother but back then "it was the Super Bowl" so I watched it. I seem to recall that my dad roped me into helping him with some home repair/renovation project during the game (which is probably a good indicator that neither of us cared all that much about it) but I still caught enough of the game to see how badly DEN got squashed. Given how strong DEN's "Orange Crush" "D" had been that season I think I was surprised at the beating they took but maybe I shouldn't have been. Craig Morton wasn't exactly what you'd call "mobile" and I don't remember that DEN team having much of a running game to speak of. Also, DAL had beaten DEN pretty soundly at the end of the 1977 regular season (although I did not know that at that time). All in all a pretty disappointing S.B. given my expectations going into it.*

I don't remember being particularly disappointed by any of the S.B.s in the '80s. Actually, S.B. XX was a bit of a disappointment, to me. Not because of who won or lost but because I figured, going into it, that the team that had knocked off, in the AFC title game, the ONE team that beat "Da Bears" that year would give a better accounting of itself in the S.B., itself. So from that standpoint the S.B. played in January of 1986 was a disappointment (tempered somewhat, in my mind, by the awe I felt in watching the CHI "D" absolutely dominate the league championship game. It's been said before but I don't think that poor Tony Eason ever fully recovered - at least in a football sense - from the shellacking he took that night).

I guess for me the biggest disappointments were those 4 straight losses in the early '90s by you-know-which team. I couldn't conceive of a team making it to 4 straight S.B.s and coming away w/o even one win. So disheartening.

After that I started to lose some interest in the S.B. and would no longer necessarily watch it "because it's the S.B."

I do share some feelings about the 2000 Ravens, in particular because of the off-field issues revolving around MLB Ray Lewis but I can't deny that that team's "D" was something to behold.

I remember being disappointed (and shocked) when N.E. beat the Rams (2001 season). Too many reasons for me to go into right now but I'm still convinced that the Rams let a golden opportunity slip through their fingers.

Of course I was sorely disappointed when PIT beat my Seahawks in DET. I don't care what the NFL says (officially): I will go to my grave convinced that the officials in that game had a HUGE part in PIT's "victory." (whether or not they were instructed to do so by league honchos I cannot say but that whole situation left a VERY bad taste in my mouth - one that took me quite some time to get out).

I, too, was a bit disappointed in the T.B. win over K.C. Not necessarily because T.B. won - although I was more in K.C.'s "camp" than I was T.B.'s going into that game. More because it was so lopsided and the "Chefs" (as they seemed to turn into that day) just didn't play well. At all. TB12 earned his (apparent) final S.B. ring that day - which is obviously GREAT for him - but to me it would've been nice if his opponents had at least put up a fight.

If I had to pick ONE S.B. as the most "icky" (and not because of Elbert "Ickey" Woods) it would probably be S.B. V. But since that game occurred before living memory for me I will not comment on it further.

*Not too long ago I watched S.B. XII again in full (don't ask me why) and noticed that while DEN absolutely got whupped that day they also failed to take advantage of several opportunities - especially early in that game - that had they capitalized on them might've meant a different outcome. What seemed to me to be the case was that whatever "good luck" DEN enjoyed during the 1977 season (that maybe helped propel them to that S.B. in the first place?) comPLETEly abandoned them in that S.B. and w/o it they couldn't compete against a team of the Cowboys' caliber.

[Brian wolf]

Like I have posted before, the Broncos in that 1977/78 SB and the Patriots in the 1985/86 SB, had the worst performances I have ever seen from offensive lines in championship games. The Vikings in the 1974/75 SB and Chiefs in the 2020/21 SB werent far behind ...

[racepug]

Like I have posted before, the Broncos in that 1977/78 SB and the Patriots in the 1985/86 SB, had the worst performances I have ever seen from offensive lines in championship games. The Vikings in the 1974/75 SB and Chiefs in the 2020/21 SB werent far behind ...

Okay, but how much of that was those offensive linemen being truly poor and how much of it was the opposing team's D-line simply being so superior that there wasn't much to hope for? For instance I've read that right before S.B. IV a well-known football TV personality saw the Vikings' wives in the French Quarter and upon finding out who they were told them "this time tomorrow you're going to be with the world champions!" and they replied "oh no we're not!" When asked to explain why the wives told him: "the guys have seen film of the Chiefs' defensive line and they're really worried. Joe Kapp doesn't think they can block those guys."

[Jay Z]

Like I have posted before, the Broncos in that 1977/78 SB and the Patriots in the 1985/86 SB, had the worst performances I have ever seen from offensive lines in championship games. The Vikings in the 1974/75 SB and Chiefs in the 2020/21 SB werent far behind ...

Okay, but how much of that was those offensive linemen being truly poor and how much of it was the opposing team's D-line simply being so superior that there wasn't much to hope for? For instance I've read that right before S.B. IV a well-known football TV personality saw the Vikings' wives in the French Quarter and upon finding out who they were told them "this time tomorrow you're going to be with the world champions!" and they replied "oh no we're not!" When asked to explain why the wives told him: "the guys have seen film of the Chiefs' defensive line and they're really worried. Joe Kapp doesn't think they can block those guys."

1977 Broncos had a below average line. Gave up 50 sacks for a team that didn't pass a lot.

1969 Vikings really just had an average offense. 10th out of 16 NFL team in yards. Defense played okay in SB IV but they needed to dominate to win and they didn't.