Games with deceptive final scores

[Bryan]

That the "Packers were just playing by the rules of the time" was the point. The Rams had to play on the road while Lombardi's Packers got a break on playoff seeding. I saw the week 13 Rams-Packers game on TV. The Packers were playing all out. That the Rams won by a blocked punt was not a surprise. George Allen emphasized special teams.

I don't claim to know how hard the Packers were playing, but I do think there is a big difference between 'wanting to win' and 'needing to win'. The Packers had nothing to play for....I'm sure they were playing 'all out' simply for Lombardi's sake, but I'm not all that surprised that the Packers routed the Rams in the postseason because the Packers had to win that game. Much like the Packers losing to the 1963 College All Stars or the inferior Cardinals in the 1965 Playoff Bowl, they didn't have any incentive to defeat the Rams in the 1967 regular season at that point. Despite the records, the Packers were better than the Rams in 1967, especially on defense. Even if the Packers had to play the Rams in LA in the 1967 postseason, I would suspect the Packers to have won in similar fashion. It's not surprising to me that the first postseason game the Rams won since the 1951 Championship was in 1974...against George Allen.

[CSKreager]

Colts/Chargers 1995 AFC Wild Card Game

While the score was 35-20, until Harbaugh scored the game's last TD both teams literally traded scores back and forth.

There were 6 lead changes to start and SD actually outgained the Colts but lost the turnover battle 4-1

[JohnTurney]

the Packers routed the Rams in the postseason because the Packers had to win that game.

Despite the records, the Packers were better than the Rams in 1967, especially on defense

Agree that Packers a better clutch team. They almost always won when they had to and the 67 team was probably better than their record.

But Rams were the better team in regular season. Better offense, defense was generally better front, pack better LBers and secondary. Packers better special teams -- Rams had breakdowns, Pack excelled..

But Rams were inexperienced in playoffs and old pros outperformed Rams -- and Cowboys --and Raiders in playoffs. But I think it is fair that they had advantage in cold weather. Cols vs Rams --- even worse vs Cowboys. But Super Bowl, obviously, no advantage.

Looking at common opponents, margins of victory and so on...how much Packers turned ball over and so. All the measures we look at.
But when it comes to "check the scoreboard" Packers will always have bragging rights for the 1960s. Steelers 1970s, 49ers 80s, Cowboys 1990s, Pats 2000s-2010s. Winner write the history.

But I agree with you in part and disagree in part. If they had played in even decent weather, the rematch in the playoffs wouldn't have been as big a margin as it was. Had it been in LA, I give it 50-50. Rams were a good team. But Packers, as you point out, were a great clutch team. Lombardi was special.

[CSKreager]

the Packers routed the Rams in the postseason because the Packers had to win that game.

Despite the records, the Packers were better than the Rams in 1967, especially on defense

Agree that Packers a better clutch team. They almost always won when they had to and the 67 team was probably better than their record.

But Rams were the better team in regular season. Better offense, defense was generally better front, pack better LBers and secondary. Packers better special teams -- Rams had breakdowns, Pack excelled..

But Rams were inexperienced in playoffs and old pros outperformed Rams -- and Cowboys --and Raiders in playoffs. But I think it is fair that they had advantage in cold weather. Cols vs Rams --- even worse vs Cowboys. But Super Bowl, obviously, no advantage.

Looking at common opponents, margins of victory and so on...how much Packers turned ball over and so. All the measures we look at.
But when it comes to "check the scoreboard" Packers will always have bragging rights for the 1960s. Steelers 1970s, 49ers 80s, Cowboys 1990s, Pats 2000s-2010s. Winner write the history.

But I agree with you in part and disagree in part. If they had played in even decent weather, the rematch in the playoffs wouldn't have been as big a margin as it was. Had it been in LA, I give it 50-50. Rams were a good team. But Packers, as you point out, were a great clutch team. Lombardi was special.

It’s amazing how being the oldest team in football wasn’t a disadvantage

GB in 67 seemed like a team that basically was clinging to the past one last time.

They were lucky, not clutch.

[CSKreager]

The Steelers were superior to everybody that season and the year before. Oilers were most likely the second-best team in the NFL that year, and possibly the year before. Houston beat everybody in 1979 - including the Steelers. They also beat the Steelers at 3 Rivers in 78.

The 78 Championship - the weather clearly was a factor and much of the game turned when the Steelers scored (I think - it's Monday morning and this is off the top of my head) - I think the Steelers scored 17 points in the last 2-3 minutes of the first half to make it 31-3. By that point, it was all academic. Weather isn't an excuse, but that game likely would have been closer without that 2-3 minute stretch.

The 79 Championship - Neither Pastorini nor Campbell were anywhere close to 100%. Mike Renfro, their third receiver, was #1 for a lot of the season because Burrough and Billy White Shoes were both injured. And they would have tied the game going into the 4th quarter in Pittsburgh had the Renfro call gone the other way.

Not saying that Houston was in Pittsburgh's class - but in my opinion, they were the biggest threat to the Steelers, especially in 1979. They split the regular season with Pittsburgh in 77, 78, and 79. They beat the Cowboys in 79. They had 3 Hall of Famers on defense. Vernon Perry had an incredible playoffs in 79 - knocked away Denver's last gasp in the WC, still record 4 ints in the Divisional, and a int ret for a TD in the AFC Championship. People always look at the late 70s Oilers and talk about Campbell and Pastorini. But their defense was as good as anybody's and significantly underrated.

The Steelers weren't likely going to get beat, period. We're talking about one of the great dynasties in NFL history. I'd put that Oiler team up against a lot of teams that won Super Bowls. Pittsburgh only lost one home playoff game in the 1970s - to the 72 Dolphins. Pastorini was one of the few quarterbacks to win in Pittsburgh more than once during their dynasty (I think Stabler was the other). Most QBs didn't win at all. I think - I'll have to double check - but I think that Houston was the only team to win in Pittsburgh after trailing or tied going into the 4th quarter during the dynasty years. That was in 74. I understand how one could look at that rivalry having only watched the playoff games and think that it wasn't as close as the Steelers/Raiders. But overall, the Steelers were the best team in the NFL -- one of the best in history -- and there's a really good argument that the Oilers were #2 in 78/79.

And the stats from the 79 game - and this underscores what I'm saying about their defense -- those Oiler teams won quite a few games that were statistically unbalanced. They just found a way to win several games that didn't look good on paper. I always thought that was because their defense made a big difference in those games.

The 78 Oilers were not better than Dallas that year. HOU was nothing more than a team that got in the way of more interesting matchups.

[SeahawkFever]

Not sure if this would fit the bill, but I thought of the 1995 Wild Card Game between the Eagles and Lions where the final score is 58-37; with Detroit scoring 30 points in garbage time after trailing 51-7.

Side note: I recall an NFL Top 10 segment about a game in 1989 where Sam Wyche ran up the score on Jerry Glanville because of beef.

Well if Philadelphia hypothetically had beef with Detroit and wanted to keep running up the score with how well they were playing in that game (and they had 51 points with about seven minutes left in the third quarter), could they have gotten to 74+ points?

[RichardBak]

Not sure if this would fit the bill, but I thought of the 1995 Wild Card Game between the Eagles and Lions where the final score is 58-37; with Detroit scoring 30 points in garbage time after trailing 51-7.

Side note: I recall an NFL Top 10 segment about a game in 1989 where Sam Wyche ran up the score on Jerry Glanville because of beef.

Well if Philadelphia hypothetically had beef with Detroit and wanted to keep running up the score with how well they were playing in that game (and they had 51 points with about seven minutes left in the third quarter), could they have gotten to 74+ points?

Lions were coming off a long win streak and actually were slight favorites, and the score was tied at 7-all going into the 2Q when the roof caved in. I remember at the time thinking Phila had a good chance of hitting 70+ points, and I was all for it. If you're gonna watch your team get smoked, might as well see some history being made.

[74_75_78_79_]

Not sure if this would fit the bill, but I thought of the 1995 Wild Card Game between the Eagles and Lions where the final score is 58-37; with Detroit scoring 30 points in garbage time after trailing 51-7.

Side note: I recall an NFL Top 10 segment about a game in 1989 where Sam Wyche ran up the score on Jerry Glanville because of beef.

Well if Philadelphia hypothetically had beef with Detroit and wanted to keep running up the score with how well they were playing in that game (and they had 51 points with about seven minutes left in the third quarter), could they have gotten to 74+ points?

Lions were coming off a long win streak and actually were slight favorites, and the score was tied at 7-all going into the 2Q when the roof caved in. I remember at the time thinking Phila had a good chance of hitting 70+ points, and I was all for it. If you're gonna watch your team get smoked, might as well see some history being made.

It was simply a classic case of a team, especially in front of their home-(non-Silverdome)-crowd, playing their very, very best whilst the visiting team (who just may have been 'spent' after winning 7 straight) playing at their very worst. I forgot what my take was going into that WC game. But I do 'treat' it as a 51-7 final score instead of the "garbage" we got.

What I do know, however, (yep, I was not fooled) was feeling at the time that Dallas would easily take care of things the following week! Yes, the Birds with that famous win over them weeks earlier. I am very surprised in hindsight that I didn't place a nice bet against the spread for that one; and I was no stranger at all to the "action" at the time.

In either event, even if the game should have been closer - or Detroit actually extends their streak to eight - 51-7 against a hot team before garbage time is still just that! The Eagles going into '95 reeked of a team that was going to take years to recover after Kotite slowly, but surely, dismantled them - losing their final 7 games in '94 the key example. But Ray, with Peete instead of #12 mind you, got it going! And then he leads the Birds back to the playoffs in '96 as well; '97 was respectable, at least, FWIW. Yes the very notorious 1998 campaign that led to Ray's dismissal, but still. An underrated fleeting "good" stretch in Eagles history IMO.

The Steelers were superior to everybody that season and the year before. Oilers were most likely the second-best team in the NFL that year, and possibly the year before. Houston beat everybody in 1979 - including the Steelers. They also beat the Steelers at 3 Rivers in 78.

The 78 Championship - the weather clearly was a factor and much of the game turned when the Steelers scored (I think - it's Monday morning and this is off the top of my head) - I think the Steelers scored 17 points in the last 2-3 minutes of the first half to make it 31-3. By that point, it was all academic. Weather isn't an excuse, but that game likely would have been closer without that 2-3 minute stretch.

The 79 Championship - Neither Pastorini nor Campbell were anywhere close to 100%. Mike Renfro, their third receiver, was #1 for a lot of the season because Burrough and Billy White Shoes were both injured. And they would have tied the game going into the 4th quarter in Pittsburgh had the Renfro call gone the other way.

Not saying that Houston was in Pittsburgh's class - but in my opinion, they were the biggest threat to the Steelers, especially in 1979. They split the regular season with Pittsburgh in 77, 78, and 79. They beat the Cowboys in 79. They had 3 Hall of Famers on defense. Vernon Perry had an incredible playoffs in 79 - knocked away Denver's last gasp in the WC, still record 4 ints in the Divisional, and a int ret for a TD in the AFC Championship. People always look at the late 70s Oilers and talk about Campbell and Pastorini. But their defense was as good as anybody's and significantly underrated.

The Steelers weren't likely going to get beat, period. We're talking about one of the great dynasties in NFL history. I'd put that Oiler team up against a lot of teams that won Super Bowls. Pittsburgh only lost one home playoff game in the 1970s - to the 72 Dolphins. Pastorini was one of the few quarterbacks to win in Pittsburgh more than once during their dynasty (I think Stabler was the other). Most QBs didn't win at all. I think - I'll have to double check - but I think that Houston was the only team to win in Pittsburgh after trailing or tied going into the 4th quarter during the dynasty years. That was in 74. I understand how one could look at that rivalry having only watched the playoff games and think that it wasn't as close as the Steelers/Raiders. But overall, the Steelers were the best team in the NFL -- one of the best in history -- and there's a really good argument that the Oilers were #2 in 78/79.

And the stats from the 79 game - and this underscores what I'm saying about their defense -- those Oiler teams won quite a few games that were statistically unbalanced. They just found a way to win several games that didn't look good on paper. I always thought that was because their defense made a big difference in those games.

The 78 Oilers were not better than Dallas that year. HOU was nothing more than a team that got in the way of more interesting matchups.

I'm super-late to the party with this post! Perhaps I may have momentarily not read it up at that very time and then never got around to it in the first place. Dan P winning at Three Rivers more than once during the '70s says so much! That late-'74 Oilers win at the 'Burgh - Pastorini at QB - almost caused a certain someone who wore #75 to...call it quits (Thank God that didn't happen)!!

Yeah, I wouldn't say that Houston was the '2nd-best' of '78. Remember, despite that ever-so-famous Earl highlight at a certain otherwise very respectable Ram-defender's expense, the Oilers lost at home to that very 12-4 team that lost to Big D in the NFCCG.

1979? Yes, they beat Dallas on Thanksgiving. I think the Oilers were better than Dallas as the actual game said. Eagles? Yes, Philly beat them in a, suddenly, meaningless finale. But maybe (maybe) Vermeil's troops were still better anyway. And the Rams...(back to they besting Hou at the Dome the year prior)...I always opined that had San Diego somehow averted that upset in the divisional round and then actually beat Pittsburgh again (yes, a BIG double what-if), that the Rams - despite the blowout home regular season defeat - would have actually took it this time! After all, they were MUCH better by then (almost beat the 'Burgh for crying out loud)!

But Oilers vs Rams? Not sure. They vs Philly? Not real sure either. So, respectfully, not sure if they were a clear '#2' in '79 either. But MAN did they give it to the 'Burgh as much as humanly possible! Yes! A very underrated defense. Bum Phillips SO successfully instilled fundamentals in his team! Likely the best "players coach" of all-time (and that tag has SUCH a stigma attached)! Yet Bum was GREAT! Perhaps being a bit too 'old-school' conservative may have been his undermining as far as hoisting a Lombardi is concerned!

[Gary Najman]

While not in these categories, I also find interesting when a team having a big lead insert their backups late in the game, and they keep scoring.

One game that I remember was the 1981 Cowboys-Colts game at Baltimore. In that game both Glenn Carano and David Humm made the only start of their careers at quarterback. Late in the game. with the Cowboys having a 30-13 lead, they put James Jones instead of Tony Dorsett to run out the clock, and Jones scored on a 59-yard TD run (by far the longest run of his career and also his only rushing TD).