The Greatest Postseason Upset of the 1970s

[Veeshik_ya]

Regarding the late 70s early 80s Chargers lack of playoff success, I think Dr. Z once wrote something about how he didn't know exactly why, but that Fouts always seemed to get himself "in a pickle" in the playoffs.

[Jay Z]

Chargers had a great pass offense except for interceptions, where they were below average. Oilers were about middle of the pack in all defensive areas, except interceptions, where they were the best. No injuries that I know of in the Oilers' secondary. So that was a risk area for the Chargers.

Fouts had as many INTs in 1980 as he did in 1979 - 24. Again they got beat in the playoffs by a team that was #1 in defensive INTs.

Haven't looked at the game in a while, but I would believe that the Oilers doubled the WRs more. It makes sense from the stats.

Gotta respectfully disagree. Saying they had a great pass offense except for the 5 interceptions is like saying the Titanic had a good trip except for the iceberg. Five picks is kind of a lot for one game . . .about 11% of his throws.

Also, maybe the Broncos had something in the season finale Fouts was 17/29 59% 230 yards 1 TD and 3 INT for a 55.9 rating

In their first meeting the Broncos won 7-0 and Fouts was 27/45 60% 305 yards, 0 TDs and 3 picks for a 52.5 rating. The quote from Bum Phillips didn't mention the first game, but did mention the second game, that Fouts was tipping something. (That's 1 Td and 6 picks for a combined 52.5 which means that outside the Broncos, Fouts was 288/456 63% 3547 yards 23 TDs and 18 INts for a rating of 87.5

Interesting to look at that.

Was comparing this game to the Super Bowl of the same year, Steelers versus Rams. Bradshaw threw 3 INT in only 21 attempts. One of the INTs came at the Ram 14, so that one ended a drive. 3rd and 10, so it would have been a FG if incomplete. Steelers got 31 points the other 5 times they had scoring opportunities. Two of the TD were not actually in the red zone, they were passes of more than 40 yards by Bradshaw. For the four times the Steelers had the ball inside the Ram 25, they got 17 points. Two Harris runs, a Bahr FG, and the pick. Rams got inside the Steeler 25 4 times and got 19 points. No long TDs for the Rams. Rams got 3 points out of the three Steeler turnovers. Rams never set the Steelers up with good field position. They did get some better field position due to some good Larry Anderson kickoff returns.

Anyway, the Steelers had 393 yards in this game with 3 turnovers. Chargers had 380 yards with 5 turnovers, one basically coming on the last play. But the Steelers scored 31 to the Chargers 14. No playoff teams in 1979 gained more than 400 yards of offense in a game. So 380 yards was a good performance. The Chargers got close to scoring 4 times, and got 14 points with one INT. Only difference with the Steelers was the FG attempt (which was shorter) was blocked and returned a long way.

It's true that Fouts did not hit on any long pass plays for TDs. But for the Chargers to get more scores, they would have had to get more yards, and 380 was already a good performance in that regard. I don't have the play by play for Chargers-Oilers, but I would guess the field position for Chargers was worse than for the Steelers.

Again, don't have the play by play, but Renfro's play might be set up by one of the picks of Fouts. That's my memory. Push that play back 10 yards, a little worse field position, and Renfro probably doesn't score. Then it's a question of whether the Oilers can pound it in, and they might have had trouble there with Nielsen limited.

Even with the Renfro play, if the Chargers don't make special team blunders the score would have been 17-10 AFTER the Renfro play. The spread was only 8. I like the Chargers' chances there if the Oilers have to go the length of the field. Maybe INT #4 doesn't happen then.

The Chargers' defense did just okay. 17 points was not a good effort against that Oiler team, but the special teams had something to do with that. If the Renfro play is regarded as a fluke, the Chargers look a little better on defense. Special teams for the Chargers were horrible in result. INTs by Fouts mattered some, I just don't think they mattered as much as we might think.

[JohnTurney]

Was comparing this game to the Super Bowl of the same year, Steelers versus Rams. Bradshaw threw 3 INT in only 21 attempts. One of the INTs came at the Ram 14, so that one ended a drive. 3rd and 10, so it would have been a FG if incomplete. Steelers got 31 points the other 5 times they had scoring opportunities. Two of the TD were not actually in the red zone, they were passes of more than 40 yards by Bradshaw. For the four times the Steelers had the ball inside the Ram 25, they got 17 points. Two Harris runs, a Bahr FG, and the pick. Rams got inside the Steeler 25 4 times and got 19 points. No long TDs for the Rams. Rams got 3 points out of the three Steeler turnovers. Rams never set the Steelers up with good field position. They did get some better field position due to some good Larry Anderson kickoff returns.

Anyway, the Steelers had 393 yards in this game with 3 turnovers. Chargers had 380 yards with 5 turnovers, one basically coming on the last play. But the Steelers scored 31 to the Chargers 14. No playoff teams in 1979 gained more than 400 yards of offense in a game. So 380 yards was a good performance. The Chargers got close to scoring 4 times, and got 14 points with one INT. Only difference with the Steelers was the FG attempt (which was shorter) was blocked and returned a long way.

It's true that Fouts did not hit on any long pass plays for TDs. But for the Chargers to get more scores, they would have had to get more yards, and 380 was already a good performance in that regard. I don't have the play by play for Chargers-Oilers, but I would guess the field position for Chargers was worse than for the Steelers.

Again, don't have the play by play, but Renfro's play might be set up by one of the picks of Fouts. That's my memory. Push that play back 10 yards, a little worse field position, and Renfro probably doesn't score. Then it's a question of whether the Oilers can pound it in, and they might have had trouble there with Nielsen limited.

Even with the Renfro play, if the Chargers don't make special team blunders the score would have been 17-10 AFTER the Renfro play. The spread was only 8. I like the Chargers' chances there if the Oilers have to go the length of the field. Maybe INT #4 doesn't happen then.

The Chargers' defense did just okay. 17 points was not a good effort against that Oiler team, but the special teams had something to do with that. If the Renfro play is regarded as a fluke, the Chargers look a little better on defense. Special teams for the Chargers were horrible in result. INTs by Fouts mattered some, I just don't think they mattered as much as we might think.

All I can say is I saw the game and the INTs were kind of a big deal. And the Bum Phillips quote was nothing new, it came from a book that was published at he time. It was a confirmation of sorts as to how the Oilers knew to play coverage. After the game in 1979 there was a lot of reports that the Oilers stole signals, with the Oilers admitting it, but they never said exactly how or why. The thing about Fouts tipping the play really, more than anything, said how the Oilers were able to get a line on things. But, it also could be that the Oilers stole signals.

I think if you check the literature of the time you'll see there were people who thought the way the Oilers seemed to know what was coming was very hinkey. And it may be possible, given the Broncos success the week before that the did get the tip from the Broncos.

[Jay Z]

Was comparing this game to the Super Bowl of the same year, Steelers versus Rams. Bradshaw threw 3 INT in only 21 attempts. One of the INTs came at the Ram 14, so that one ended a drive. 3rd and 10, so it would have been a FG if incomplete. Steelers got 31 points the other 5 times they had scoring opportunities. Two of the TD were not actually in the red zone, they were passes of more than 40 yards by Bradshaw. For the four times the Steelers had the ball inside the Ram 25, they got 17 points. Two Harris runs, a Bahr FG, and the pick. Rams got inside the Steeler 25 4 times and got 19 points. No long TDs for the Rams. Rams got 3 points out of the three Steeler turnovers. Rams never set the Steelers up with good field position. They did get some better field position due to some good Larry Anderson kickoff returns.

Anyway, the Steelers had 393 yards in this game with 3 turnovers. Chargers had 380 yards with 5 turnovers, one basically coming on the last play. But the Steelers scored 31 to the Chargers 14. No playoff teams in 1979 gained more than 400 yards of offense in a game. So 380 yards was a good performance. The Chargers got close to scoring 4 times, and got 14 points with one INT. Only difference with the Steelers was the FG attempt (which was shorter) was blocked and returned a long way.

It's true that Fouts did not hit on any long pass plays for TDs. But for the Chargers to get more scores, they would have had to get more yards, and 380 was already a good performance in that regard. I don't have the play by play for Chargers-Oilers, but I would guess the field position for Chargers was worse than for the Steelers.

Again, don't have the play by play, but Renfro's play might be set up by one of the picks of Fouts. That's my memory. Push that play back 10 yards, a little worse field position, and Renfro probably doesn't score. Then it's a question of whether the Oilers can pound it in, and they might have had trouble there with Nielsen limited.

Even with the Renfro play, if the Chargers don't make special team blunders the score would have been 17-10 AFTER the Renfro play. The spread was only 8. I like the Chargers' chances there if the Oilers have to go the length of the field. Maybe INT #4 doesn't happen then.

The Chargers' defense did just okay. 17 points was not a good effort against that Oiler team, but the special teams had something to do with that. If the Renfro play is regarded as a fluke, the Chargers look a little better on defense. Special teams for the Chargers were horrible in result. INTs by Fouts mattered some, I just don't think they mattered as much as we might think.

All I can say is I saw the game and the INTs were kind of a big deal. And the Bum Phillips quote was nothing new, it came from a book that was published at he time. It was a confirmation of sorts as to how the Oilers knew to play coverage. After the game in 1979 there was a lot of reports that the Oilers stole signals, with the Oilers admitting it, but they never said exactly how or why. The thing about Fouts tipping the play really, more than anything, said how the Oilers were able to get a line on things. But, it also could be that the Oilers stole signals.

I think if you check the literature of the time you'll see there were people who thought the way the Oilers seemed to know what was coming was very hinkey. And it may be possible, given the Broncos success the week before that the did get the tip from the Broncos.

One thing I specifically remember from the broadcast is that there was a shot early in the game of the Chargers doing their signals. They were either using two people to signal or were trying to shield the signals. The announcers specifically mentioned their tactics. So the Chargers specifically were taking steps, aware that the signals might be stolen. Either the Oilers were able to steal the signals anyway, or the issue was overblown.

There are advantages to bragging up "mysterious" talents. It can be a bluff. Intimidate the opposition, make them think you know more than you do.

If the Chargers gained 380 yards with their signals being stolen, how many do they gain if they're not stolen? 400? 500? 380 yards was already a good performance. The turnovers were not, although Bradshaw threw three picks in the first three quarters of the Super Bowl that same year. The storylines from that game were almost the same through 3 quarters, with the favored team turning the ball over and trailing slightly going into the fourth quarter. In the fourth quarter Bradshaw had big throws leading to two scores. Fouts had two more picks.

Maybe the Oilers played possum, used their inside info to keep things on the down low until just the right moment. I don't see the impact, but who knows.

[JohnTurney]

One thing I specifically remember from the broadcast is that there was a shot early in the game of the Chargers doing their signals. They were either using two people to signal or were trying to shield the signals. The announcers specifically mentioned their tactics. So the Chargers specifically were taking steps, aware that the signals might be stolen. Either the Oilers were able to steal the signals anyway, or the issue was overblown.

There are advantages to bragging up "mysterious" talents. It can be a bluff. Intimidate the opposition, make them think you know more than you do.

If the Chargers gained 380 yards with their signals being stolen, how many do they gain if they're not stolen? 400? 500? 380 yards was already a good performance. The turnovers were not, although Bradshaw threw three picks in the first three quarters of the Super Bowl that same year. The storylines from that game were almost the same through 3 quarters, with the favored team turning the ball over and trailing slightly going into the fourth quarter. In the fourth quarter Bradshaw had big throws leading to two scores. Fouts had two more picks.

Maybe the Oilers played possum, used their inside info to keep things on the down low until just the right moment. I don't see the impact, but who knows.

380 yards isn't a good performance if it does not produce points. If you move the ball and get picked off 5 times, it tends to cause you to lose games.

[Jay Z]

380 yards isn't a good performance if it does not produce points. If you move the ball and get picked off 5 times, it tends to cause you to lose games.

I went back and watched the game last night, and did a chart of the drives and results:

Oiler Drives:
HOU 25 9 28 Punt
HOU 22 3 9 Punt
HOU 18 6 17 Punt
SD 28 5 21 FG
SD 37 9 37 Touchdown
HOU 27 5 22 Punt
SD 23 3 5 Int
SD 47 3 47 Touchdown
HOU 22 9 33 Punt
HOU 32 6 25 Punt
HOU 28 1 -1 Game

Charger Drives
SD 18 11 82 Touchdown
SD 33 5 20 Int
SD 30 11 61 Blocked FG
SD 23 3 1 Int
SD 27 2 20 Half
SD 36 6 64 Touchdown
SD 2 5 11 Punt
SD 20 4 9 Int
SD 23 8 27 Punt
SD 10 6 56 Int
SD 5 7 35 Int

Down and distance on Fouts first three INTs were 3rd and 3, 3rd and 9, and 3rd and 17. #4 came on 1st and 10 at the Oiler 34, which is the one that impacted the Chargers' point total. On #5 the Chargers would have been throwing a Hail Mary from 60 yards if that pass had been INC, since there were only 10 seconds left when that play was run.

Chargers had 4 drives longer than the Oilers' longest drive. Of course, Oilers started 4 times with the ball in SD territory, and Chargers never started with the ball in Oiler territory.

I think the INTs by Fouts helped the Oilers score. Both Oilers touchdowns came after Fouts INTs that gave them the ball in San Diego territory. Those INTs did not affect the Chargers scoring that much, since they got the ball back at about the same point. But of course the Chargers were seven points worse off.

Int #1 gave up about 20 yards of field position. Int #4 gave up about 60 yards, that was the bad one as far as the Chargers scoring.

I also looked at the play by play for the Steelers Rams Super Bowl that year. Bradshaw's first INT came on a first and 10 at the Steeler 37. Not scoring position for the Steelers, but the Rams got a field goal from that. Second one came on 3rd and 10 at their own 45. Rams did nothing and punted the ball. Only about 20 yards of field position there. #3 came on 3rd and 9 at the Ram 16. So a probably field goal there. Rams got only one first down, but Steelers gave up about 60 yards in field position and 3 points after the punt.

So my summary would be:
Fouts first 3 INTs: 14 points more given up, 20 yards of field position
Bradshaw first 3 INTs: 3 points not scored, 3 points more given up, 80 yards of field position

Fouts' INTs were more damaging in helping the Oilers score points than keeping the Chargers from scoring points. The Chargers had the ball at the Oiler 34 on INT #4. Assume they get a field goal out of that drive. That would give the Chargers 17 points. My opinion is that even if all of the Fouts INTs are incomplete passes, the Chargers still only score 17 points.

But 17 points would have been enough had that happened. If no INTs, and the blocked field goal is not returned, the Oilers actually need a drive longer than 47 yards to get their points. Maybe they could have done it, but they didn't show the ability to go that far on their other drives. Oilers had only one three and out, and their turnover came in the Chargers end. So moving the ball some, not turning it over, and punting kept the Chargers from ever having great field position.

Looked at the field position for the Steelers Rams Super Bowl. Steelers only had it once in Rams territory, and they did not score on that drive. But the worst they ever had it was their own 21. Good kickoff returns, and no punts pinning them deep. The Chargers had five drives that started inside their own 21. They add up.

I think if there are no Fouts INTs, the Chargers win the game with a lower score than expected, 17-6 or 17-10 or something like that. Fouts INTs hurt, but they hurt the defense more than the Charger offense.

[JohnTurney]

I think if there are no Fouts INTs, the Chargers win the game. . .

Okay

.

[Jay Z]

I think if there are no Fouts INTs, the Chargers win the game. . .

Okay

.

I win!

[fgoodwin]

Did the Rams have QB issues? Sure, but they always did. Nothing new there. Defensively, the Rams gave up fewer points than Dallas that year (309 to 313), but more important, their DPR was 64.7 to Dallas's 72.5. Sure, the game was in Dallas, but the Rams beat the Cowboys in Dallas in the 1976 playoffs.

In other words, the Rams had live dog written all over them. The only reason this is considered a huge upset is the Staubach story, a media story, not a football story.

I agree that its not that great of an upset in retrospect...kind of like the reverse of the 1975 NFC Championship game. I would guess that the Cowboys destroying the Rams the last two times they played (28-0 in 78 Championship, 30-6 in 79 reg season) was a factor in the line being Dallas -8.5. Ferragamo was probably better than people thought at the time, and Randy Hughes at SS instead of Charlie Waters might have been significant as the Cowboys gave up 3 long TD passes. Don't know if that happens with Waters on the field.

How ABOUT bringing up both '75 & '78 NFCCs? Perhaps not so much that Dallas WON both, but ANNIHILATING them (and in LA, even)?? I would guess '75 a bigger upset being Dallas was the 10-4 wild card and Rams were 12-2 top-dog,

I thought Minnesota was the top-ranked team in 1975? Hosting the WC Cowboys was their "reward" for having the best NFC record, right? Or were 1st round match-ups not determined by W-L records?

but Dallas did beat Rams opening day that year whereas in '78, Rams won vs Dallas during regular season. One thing both '75 & '78 Rams had in common though...both beat Pittsburgh. Definitely a franchise that was too good to go the entire '70s without winning at least one Bowl.

[Veeshik_ya]

I'd have to chart it out, but if Oakland and Los Angeles were the two also-rans of their respective conferences in the 1970s (the Raiders winning one SB to the Rams none, of course) part of it was attributable to playoff scheduling that was never in their favor.

It seems like Oakland was always saddled with having to beat both Miami and Pittsburgh to get to the Super Bowl. They'd beat one then lose to the other. Similarly, the Rams were tasked with having to run the gauntlet of both Minnesota and Dallas to get to the big one.

As a result, the two dominate teams of each conference, Miami and Pittsburgh in the AFC and Dallas and Minnesota in the NFC both benefited by Oakland and Los Angeles either taking out or softening up their main playoff competition before they played them.

A bit of an oversimplification, perhaps, but somewhat true.

Or, heh, they just weren't good enough.