The most 'boring' Super Bowl ever, IYO?

[Gary Najman]

For me, XX Patriots-Bears and XXIV Broncos-49ers (inspite of the scoring and the players) were boring blowouts. I remember in both games stop watching. On a side note, I consider that the NFL Films highlights of Super Bowl XX were the worst produced of any of the first 25 Super Bowls by far. Very dull, weaker music, bad storytelling/editing, not enough camera angles (which enhanced and helped many of the first SB highlights, like in V and VII).

[74_75_78_79_]

Great comments (again, as always with you all)! I can't paste every one so far so I'll make a general response.

Let's discuss further SBXXXV. More I think of it. not only do I further regret not bringing it up before my 'EDIT', but the 'gap' between it and SBXV is getting all the skinnier! I did think going into that AFC divisional between Balt and Tenn that the winner would win-it-all. But upon Ravens winning that, it didn't mean I had to like it!

Titans were so razor-close to beating those Rams the year before. And the way they steamrolled down the stretch to that all-by-themselves best-record-in-the-league at 13-3...they reeked of the first team since the '72 Dolphins to win a SB after losing it the year before! I remember players from that 'perfect' team talking of them doing so in the off-season. They looked the part!

But the Ravens, named after an Edgar poem, won and were now in the apparent driver's seat! There also was the Ray Lewis story that off-season (which everyone seems to forget of now) and the Browns who, yes, were rivals of my team. But I did respect them. I rooted for them in those '80s AFCCG-losses to Denver. They move to Baltimore, change their name, and NOW they're on the doorstep of a Super Bowl as well as a Lombardi! I was rooting for Raiders/Giants instead! Had a better ring.

But I knew it wasn't going to happen and after seeing it at a friend's apartment, all of us were depressed. We said that we WEREN'T going to watch the Super Bowl in two weeks! Well, we all ended up doing so - and at the same place. I thought that, maybe, a spread-out Kerry Collins pass-attack could make things interesting. And I didn't think that because I was a Penn State-fan. Bettis saying the two weeks leading up that he thought the Giants' D was better than the Ravens' having played against each of them added more of a, "okay, I'm of course still going to watch, Go Giants!"

Unlike the Raiders/Eagles, it was FWIW a closer 10-0 defensive slug-fest at halftime; and Dilfer almost threw a pick-6!. Punt-exchanges-galore. Chess match between Marvin and Fox (Ray and Strahan being their respective 'Queen' pieces). Not 14-0 right away thus, "okay, it's over". But then Ravens go up 17-0, G-men return the kickoff for a TD. 17-7, but it was a kickoff return. Let's see if NYG can make them punt again and Kerry, Tiki, and Co can actually drive them down-field for another score. Nope, Ravens then return a kickoff of their own and - despite the possible 'excitement' of such back-to-back scoring plays on the big stage - it simply took all air out of any even quasi suspense leading up (and I mean ALL air)! Boring as hell from there and, who knows, let this grow a bit, ask me in a couple more weeks, and maybe (just maybe) XXXV does top the very event that was twenty Januarys prior! Let's see.


Super Bowl XVII? I respectfully have to disagree with anyone thinking it's anywhere near most-'boring'. It WAS a competitive game scoreboard-wise. Perhaps the fact that the game took place in ultra-anti-esteemed 1982 may lose 'points' with some. But I always felt in my opinion that had '82 went full, that Washington plays and beats Dallas for the NFC anyway, Miami plays and beats the Jets for the AFC anyway; thus the TWO BEST teams rightfully play each other anyway! '83 Dolphins get respective praise (Dan's debut). But whereas they lost right away to 9-7 Seattle (though, yes, Hawks were better/grittier than record). '82 was special because they not only beat the Jets, not only swept the Jets, but...THREPT them (yes, yes, blame it on the Rain)! '82 Dolphins were a REAL Super Bowl team!


An already-Legend, Shula, chess-ing it up against a Legend-to-be in Joe Gibbs. I guess Redskins still win anyway, but that Theismann self-save was BIG! Better than what Big Ben did at Indy 22 years later if only because it wasn't actually in a...Super Bowl but simply a divisional game. Now If only Theismann could do it a year later at Squirek's expense. Actually, would that have made a difference? Okay, 31-9, final score instead! Yes, that disappointing Raiders/Redskins SB can possibly be placed in same light as Tampa Bay/KC. But each offered at least some hope of the losing team/defending-Champ, maybe, making a comeback in the 2nd half so I can't really buy any such claim that one would make for each. No, IMHO, both XVIII and Covid-LV are off the schnide though not by too much! Maybe a little room for argument. A little.


Super Bowl LIII, Pats 13, Rams 3? Another respectful no-way. It WAS a close game albeit ridiculous defense especially for the times (FORTY years after the Mel Blount Rule)! The 2018 Rams were, really, a great team! SB-caliber, certainly! No, not '99 nor '01 (nor 1945), but for their time, maybe better than '51 going into their respective title game and so-likely (no, actually) better than 2021 (Pats a SO-MUCH stronger opponent than the no-OL 10-7 Bengals by ALL means)!

So many plays take up a football game! If one (or a few) 'bad' call(s) is the "reason" why you don't get it done, than you simply didn't do enough thus really didn't deserve victory! Both Rams and Saints were NFC stalwarts that season. Yes, Saints beat them in the regular season but who knows about a rematch? The Rams, with Mahomes, supplied a modern 'Classic' vs each other that season! Rams were real! Tough game but, unfortunately for NO, another example of a non-2009 Payton/Brees squad losing out to a lesser seeded team in the post-season. Yes, Mahomes already in a SB would have been nice in '18, especially a hot rematch against the Rams (he vs Brees quite nice too)! But one final 'lesson' from Tom needed to be applied until his...Journey would truly take-off!

No, I never factor a half-time show into the equation at all. And we all love Dorothy! But that show instead of...(fill in Big blank) simply added exclamation mark to how that January '92 event was. NFL was $uper-Big by then even, and although I am old-school, it's such a serious BIG bu$ine$$ now, Super Bowl Sunday is practically a Holiday as it already was then, so it was time to $tep up!! And Michael Jackson $tep-up they DID!!


Super Bowl V? Absolutely NOT! I still want to see this in its absolute entirety! And all the way to Virginia giving the Colts the Trophy in the locker room along with interviews, etc! It's 'sloppy-ness' simply a product of hard-nosed defensive football! Lead-changes, team about to score but all for naught...football is tough! It's UGLY! And this game is the example! Yes, XL also.

Super Bowl XLVIII? I guess if you're a Denver fan. I did think the game would be a nice contrasts-between-styles. But then again we thought SF/Miami and Tampa Bay/Raiders would be too. What gets it "off the schnide" with me - and, again, JMHO - is that there was "suspense" as to if the game would end in a shutout! A real shame to see Peyton go through that, but - man - what a display of that...Legion of BOOM!! And just WHY didn't they...Repeat??


Super Bowl XXIX? Oh yes, dreadful! My worst-ever Steeler-memory was that forever-anti-esteemed '94 AFCCG!! Congrats to Seau and forever-underrated Bobby Ross, but still OUCH anyway and should have NEVER happened! But it DID! Needless to say, I didn't ask to take off from work that day. Listened to it on the radio. When SD did drive down-field early, chewing time off the clock, to have Natrone punch it in to make it, 14-7, that was temporary suspense. But Stan keeping up with that...WHATEVER you want to call that...scoring MACHINE!! Hey, it WAS "suspenseful" at the end of the game if you bet the spread! San Fran scored...49 points!! Not 'dull', I guess.


I see no one mentioned Super Bowl III nor, IMO, no one should! Everyone's eyes had to be utterly GLUED/hypnotized to the screen for the entirety just to SEE if this was really happening or if the MIGHTY ("better than any Lombardi team") COLTS were actually going to suddenly...WAKE UP and make it the Greatest COMEBACK Ever!! The whole Johnny U coming in had to add some drama! To those who were around, does anyone actually KNOW anyone who actually turned it off??

The following year? Sure-enough there were so many thinking last year was a 'fluke'. Mighty 12-2 (really, 12-1) Vikings heavily favored out for NFL-revenge! But once they, themselves, were down, 16-0, I can only imagine most were like..."okay, the AFL for real now". This even when Minny immediately scored early in the 3rd Q to make it 16-7. Come to think of it now, maybe you can place this near, or arguably better, than Oak/Phi and Ravens/NYG. Maybe, maybe not. Kapp (as much a fan I am) & Co didn't exactly have a 'dynamic' pass-attack like Earl & Co apparently had the year before. I don't know, you all tell me what you thought at the time who were present. You think #1 1 brings 'em back??


EDIT - nope to XX and XXIV. Again, a simple "will Bears score 53 (while keeping Pats at 3)", "will San Fran score 62" does it! Although I actually rooted for the 'Favorite' in XX, I liked the Pats in their red unis! They looked good while getting their ***es kicked in! Those very unis, home or away, would have enabled me to tolerate the 21st Century better had they still stuck with those. XXIV? SF basically scored two TDs every quarter! Yes, I was depressed that they "caught up" to the 'Burgh after that! And John Madden bringing forth reminder with his "best team ever" comment wilted me some more. But, no, as I said, the most-lopsided with me prevents it from being..."dull". Again, do they score 53? Do they score 62? Do they score...79 (XPs no longer being kicked) had I been at Griffith in '40?

Just my opinion.

[Bob Gill]

For me, XX Patriots-Bears and XXIV Broncos-49ers (inspite of the scoring and the players) were boring blowouts. I remember in both games stop watching. On a side note, I consider that the NFL Films highlights of Super Bowl XX were the worst produced of any of the first 25 Super Bowls by far. Very dull, weaker music, bad storytelling/editing, not enough camera angles (which enhanced and helped many of the first SB highlights, like in V and VII).

I saw the highlight film from the first Super Bowl not long ago and thought it was just terrible. It gave absolutely no sense of how the game went: It showed a bunch of good plays by the Packers, then a similar bunch of good plays by the Chiefs, then a "key interception" by Willie Wood or somebody, and then Lombardi shaking hands with everybody. I'm not sure they even mentioned the score at any point in the game.

I'm guessing it was done that way because it was the first one and the idea was not to make it look like the Packers blew out the Chiefs in the second half. If that was the idea, it certainly worked. I don't see how anybody who didn't know how it turned out would get any idea from that highlight film.

[Crazy Packers Fan]

I'd say Super Bowl VIII. I can't remember a single play from that Super Bowl. Many of the other snoozers like XXXV or 50 or VI have that one play that sticks out. I remember absolutely nothing from VIII except for one moment when Bart Starr and Pat Summerall answered Ray Scott with the same answer at the same time. And obviously, that game was never a contest.

[sheajets]

I'd say Super Bowl VIII. I can't remember a single play from that Super Bowl. Many of the other snoozers like XXXV or 50 or VI have that one play that sticks out. I remember absolutely nothing from VIII except for one moment when Bart Starr and Pat Summerall answered Ray Scott with the same answer at the same time. And obviously, that game was never a contest.

Also in terms of the Super Bowl Aesthetic...the look and feel of the game...it just looked so dour, gloomy, drab. Rice Stadium and that ugly turf just did not provide a very good stage for the event.

IX was similar. Another cold turf overcast Super Bowl. blah

[SixtiesFan]

I'd say Super Bowl VIII. I can't remember a single play from that Super Bowl. Many of the other snoozers like XXXV or 50 or VI have that one play that sticks out. I remember absolutely nothing from VIII except for one moment when Bart Starr and Pat Summerall answered Ray Scott with the same answer at the same time. And obviously, that game was never a contest.

Super Bowl VIII was about the least entertaining. The Vikings were never in it. The NFL Network recently showed the replays of this game and others. I watched several of them, including Number VIII, dull was one way to describe it.

Bud Grant's teams, in their four Super Bowl defeats, never scored a point in the first half.

[Bob Gill]

Bud Grant's teams, in their four Super Bowl defeats, never scored a point in the first half.

Interesting. I never noticed that.

Don Shula had sort of the opposite problem: In his five championship game losses (four Super Bowls and the 1964 game against the Browns), his teams were shut out in the SECOND half, except for that meaningless touchdown the Colts scored with about three minutes left against the Jets.

[CSKreager]

I agree with Crazy Packers Fan: SB VIII was the ultimate Boring Bowl

What REALLY stood out in that game?

XXXV had the 3 consecutive return touchdowns

XXIX had the first ever SB 2PC

XXIV had Rice bouncing off Atwater

XXXIII had a rare kickoff return TD

48 had the safety

Even SB XX New England had a lead!

Heck as bad as Pats/Rams II was, at least the game wasn’t over by the 2nd quarter. Yes it was Punt Bowl but at no point was it a 2 score game until 1:12 left. For nearly 59 minutes it was a 1 score game

[Bryan]

I saw the highlight film from the first Super Bowl not long ago and thought it was just terrible. It gave absolutely no sense of how the game went: It showed a bunch of good plays by the Packers, then a similar bunch of good plays by the Chiefs, then a "key interception" by Willie Wood or somebody, and then Lombardi shaking hands with everybody. I'm not sure they even mentioned the score at any point in the game.

I'm guessing it was done that way because it was the first one and the idea was not to make it look like the Packers blew out the Chiefs in the second half. If that was the idea, it certainly worked. I don't see how anybody who didn't know how it turned out would get any idea from that highlight film.

I felt the same way about the Super Bowl V film. It doesn't really give you a sense of how the scores and the missed opportunities transpired. Howley had a great INT early in the game to setup Dallas' first score, and I don't even think that play is in the film. Ted Hendricks made a great play to sniff out a screen and bat down Morton's pass, which had he not tipped it would have been a walk-in TD for Duane Thomas. Baltimore had a first and goal from the 2 at the end of the first half, Dallas had a goal line stand, and McCafferty elected to try a 4th down pass instead of kicking a FG. Just a lot of stuff that is glossed over.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'd say Super Bowl VIII. I can't remember a single play from that Super Bowl. Many of the other snoozers like XXXV or 50 or VI have that one play that sticks out. I remember absolutely nothing from VIII except for one moment when Bart Starr and Pat Summerall answered Ray Scott with the same answer at the same time. And obviously, that game was never a contest.

Also in terms of the Super Bowl Aesthetic...the look and feel of the game...it just looked so dour, gloomy, drab. Rice Stadium and that ugly turf just did not provide a very good stage for the event.

IX was similar. Another cold turf overcast Super Bowl. blah

Never seen VIII, but those descriptions seem agreeable based on what I've gathered over time. The NFL Films doc, itself, is hard to get through! No aesthetic value; yes, not a good stage. I will never voluntarily "roll up my sleeves" and...watch the game (eh, maybe; I can be a glutton for punishment sometimes)! But, again, with the..."will it be a shutout" is what prevents it from being '#1'. One OF the dullest, indeed (perhaps a Mt Rushmore), but IMO not #1. Maybe that's the wrong way to see it, but just how I do see it.

Now Super Bowl IX being overcast and cold? Well, of COURSE! No better 'stage'/'look' for a blue-collar franchise winning their first-ever World Title in a defensive game! Under the originally-planned Superdome would NOT have been the fit! No way!

In theory, you'd think the first SB under a dome should been following the '78 season given the rule changes to make the game more flashy and pass-happy. But seeing who actually partook in that event - no, Orange Bowl again for those two was just fine! And same for SBXIV in the Pasadena sun!

XV...perhaps that would have been the more-fitting first SB under a dome!