Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

One that came to mind was 1979 Tampa Bay over Philadelphia. The Eagles announced themselves as a Super Bowl contender with a Monday Night mid-season win at Dallas that got huge publicity, then they finished strong with a 6-1 record over their last 7 games. Wilbert Montgomery had a monster year, Jaworski to Carmichael might have been the best combo in the NFC, and their other young players including Keith Krepfle (18.5 ypc for a TE is pretty good) looked ready to take the next step.

Tampa Bay had regressed agonizingly over the last month, losing three in a row (including a loss to 1-13 SF) before their rain-soaked 3-0 win over KC which was more a point of drowning-avoidance than a football game. Many thought that the clock struck midnight on the Buccaneer Cinderella story, and the Eagles would make a very strong showing while moving on to an NFC Championship rematch with Dallas.

I would say though that the biggest playoff upset of the 1970s was the 1977 Mud Bowl. Since it was such a mud bowl it isn't really remembered as much as a game, but there was some legitimate football played early on before the field became surreal. Going in, the Rams were expected to exact severe revenge for their previous playoff losses to Minnesota, and it didn't seem like the Vikings could do anything about it.

With Tarkenton they were eviscerated by the Rams on MNF earlier in the year, looking very old, weak and slow and completely passed by by the younger, stronger, faster Rams. Now without Tarkenton they figured to be an absolute pushover for a Rams team that earlier that month had beaten Oakland when the Raiders still had an aura about them.

Even Roger Staubach, not one to typically engage in such slighting verbiage, said on the record after beating the Bears in the NFC playoff before the Vikings-Rams game: "I'm sure we're going to play Los Angeles."

As a young Vikings fan, I was utterly cringing at the start of this game, watching the TV while I sat tucked behind a chair all the way in the corner of my parents' bedroom. As the game went on and the Vikings took a lead and did not give it up, I progressed to sit on the chair, then moved to the edge of the bed, then by the fourth quarter to the front of the bed to get as good a view as possible of the 20-inch black-and-white set. I was just so happy that utter humiliation had not descended upon my Vikings-centric world!

Bryan wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote: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, 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.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:

Bryan wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote: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, 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.

As one who followed them, it is strange the 1973-79 Rams didn't win at least one Super Bowl. Well, their special teams would have kicks blocked, running backs would fumble on first down deep in the other team's territory, quarterbacks would make the big error early in the game, and then there was Chuck Knox being out coached by Tom Landry and Bud Grant. Hard to win (or reach) a Super Bowl when those things happen.

Ray Malavasi did do something Knox wouldn't. He would actually pass on first down.

In 1975, Ron Jaworski played the last game of the regular season when James Harris had an injured shoulder. They beat the Steelers 10-3. Jaworski started the playoff game against the Cardinals and looked good, while the Ram defense ran two interceptions back for touchdowns and McCutcheon ran 37 times for 202 yards.

The next week, Knox started Harris in the NFC Championship game against the Cowboys. The Rams (according to SI writer Dan Jenkins) were lifeless. Harris had a bad interception early and was replaced. Mccutcheon was held to 10 yards. The score was 37-7 and it wasn't that close.

The 1978 NFC Championship game was scoreless at halftime and the Rams were still in it after three quarters, but could not make a big play on offense. The Cowboys did.

Bryan wrote:

Jay Z wrote:Oilers had a few things going for them. Best part of their defense was their ability to create turnovers on INTs. They didn't have a great run defense, but the Chargers didn't run the ball all that well in 1979.

The turnovers by the Chargers were not that big a deal to me. The 4th INT hurt a lot. The other ones were down the field throws, and at least there wasn't much of a return. Gifford Nielsen didn't have a good arm, but he didn't turn the ball over. That meant the Chargers never had great field position. Given that, I don't think the Chargers were going to blow the Oilers out.

The Oilers also had the edge in "playoff experience". At the very least, the Chargers looked a bit tentative the entire game, perhaps due to their lack of postseason experience.

I think the Chargers turnovers were the key to the game. San Diego marched down the field on their opening possession and scored a TD...they could move the ball on Oilers all game long, but their possessions were eaten up by interceptions. Bob Klein was particularly terrible...he dropped a ton of passes and a couple of the INTs were throws that bounced off his hands. After watching the game (used to be on Youtube), I was not surprised to learn that the 1979 playoff was the final game of Klein's career. The Oilers seemed content to double up on the outside WRs and/or play both safeties deep and let Klein roam free in the middle. Perhaps if Winslow was healthy, the Oilers wouldn't have been able to do this. Much was made of the Oilers "stealing signals" (in reality, Fouts would line up under center with a 'cheat step' on passing plays), but I don't know how much that really helped. The Chargers made a lot of mistakes on their own.

Gifford Nielsen was immobile, indecisive, and had zero arm strength. The most amazing thing to me about the game is that Nielsen's final numbers actually looked decent (10-19-111-1-1). The only good pass he threw all game was the one to Renfro, which was a 10-yard slant turned into a 47-yard TD. The Chargers didn't play poorly on defense, but I thought they were too conservative. They should have forced the issue more by playing 8 in the box and stacking the LOS. They kind of let Houston run their regular offense. Carpenter, Wilson, and Clark were able to gain consistent yardage, and Nielsen wasn't sacked. I don't think its a stretch to say that Gifford Nielsen is the least-impressive QB to ever win a postseason game.

The five most important plays in the game were probably:
Chargers blocked FG returned for 65 yards or so by Vernon Perry, set up a FG
Chargers have 12 men on the FG on a chip shot, Oilers run another play and score a TD
Mike Williams intercepting Nielsen in the end zone (a break for the Chargers)
Nielsen to Renfro for the TD
Interception #4, off Klein's hands on a short pass when the Chargers are driving

Int #5 was a desperation heave. #1 through #3 certainly stopped drives, but they were thrown down field a bit, not returned, not deep in the territory of either team. They didn't take away scoring chances from the Chargers or give them to the Oilers.

I believe you about the Oilers doubling Joiner and Jefferson. Klein had 5 catches. Backups John Floyd and Greg McCrary combined for 4 for 121. So the Oilers likely forced the issue. Chargers hadn't run the ball well since very early in the season.

As far as the Chargers defense being too conservative, I can think of a couple of other games. The Colts Packers playoff game in 1965 with Matte at QB. Matte and company came up with 3 points. The defense gave them another 7. Packers moved the ball, but missed some opportunities and had turnovers. Took the Packers OT to win it. Hard to know what the Packers could have done differently on defense, since Matte probably ran really conservative plays and only scored 3 points anyway.

In 1976 with the Steelers playing the Raiders without Harris and Bleier. The Steelers still had Bradshaw and the receivers, but Bradshaw was not suited to completing a bunch of passes or doing dink and dunk. Bradshaw liked to go deep. I don't know if the Raiders made any adjustments. Bradshaw came up with one TD but that was it. Raiders were very conservative, running the ball much more than usual on offense. They got help from Bradshaw when an INT was run back to the Steelers 1. Also, Bradshaw and company couldn't hold on to the ball, couldn't make first downs, so the Raiders' running game could wear the defense down.

In the Chargers-Oilers game the Chargers couldn't wear the Oilers down because they weren't a good running team. The Oilers didn't give up any points by turning the ball over, didn't set up the Chargers with field position. So the Chargers, despite good yardage, probably were going to have a lower score, maybe 20-21 points? They got 14.

But 17 points is way too many to give up to that Oiler team. Chargers' special teams gave up 10, getting a chip shot FG blocked (3), having it run back into FG position for the Oilers (3), and the 12 men on the field converted into a TD (4). That's bad, LA Rams bad. Then the Renfro play. That Oilers offense should have been held somewhere between 6-10 points, not 17.

While it obviously wasn't, many people probably considered the 1974 AFC title game a big upset, since Oakland had knocked off Miami in the Sea of Hands game that was considered the "real" Super Bowl.

Joe Zagorski wrote:Hey Guys:

What playoff game (or Super Bowl) do you think was the greatest postseason upset during the decade of the 1970s? I'm thinking it might have been in 1979 when the Oilers defeated the Chargers in San Diego, but I could be wrong. Please take into account how much of an underdog the winner was, how many injuries, the statistics going into the game, etc. Thanks for your help, and I look forward to reading a bunch of great responses from you guys!

Sincerely,
Joe Zagorski

This also may have had something to do with the upset

"Every time San Diego ran the ball, the Denver linebackers had their hands in the air before the play, (Bum) Phillips said. "We knew they had something so we had one of our players call old friend defensive end Barney Chavous."

Chavous observed that Fouts was tipping off plays. Fouts stood with his feet square before runs and staggered his feet before passes. Vernon Perry picked off 4 passes in that game and the Oilers eliminated the Chargers from the playoffs, even though Earl Campbell and Dan Pastorini didn't play."

JohnTurney wrote:

Joe Zagorski wrote:Hey Guys:

What playoff game (or Super Bowl) do you think was the greatest postseason upset during the decade of the 1970s? I'm thinking it might have been in 1979 when the Oilers defeated the Chargers in San Diego, but I could be wrong. Please take into account how much of an underdog the winner was, how many injuries, the statistics going into the game, etc. Thanks for your help, and I look forward to reading a bunch of great responses from you guys!

Sincerely,
Joe Zagorski

This also may have had something to do with the upset

"Every time San Diego ran the ball, the Denver linebackers had their hands in the air before the play, (Bum) Phillips said. "We knew they had something so we had one of our players call old friend defensive end Barney Chavous."

Chavous observed that Fouts was tipping off plays. Fouts stood with his feet square before runs and staggered his feet before passes. Vernon Perry picked off 4 passes in that game and the Oilers eliminated the Chargers from the playoffs, even though Earl Campbell and Dan Pastorini didn't play."

The Oilers strategized their way into giving up 317 passing yards? That was better than Fouts and company did in all but 3 regular season games. What happened on the first drive of each half? Were the Oilers just giving the Chargers a false sense of security?

The most damaging INT to the Chargers chances came when a short pass bounced off the hands of a tight end and into the air. What did the Oilers knowledge have to do with that play?

Other than the INTs, the Oilers defensive effort was unexceptional. Several other plays had a huge impact on the game that had nothing to do with the Chargers passing game. Plus the Oilers holding and moving the ball a bit, not turning it over and giving the Chargers a short field.

Apparently the Oilers' knowledge was so foolproof that they could let the Chargers move the ball at will, because they could intercept the ball any time they wanted. And they could afford to give up 14 points despite a crippled offense, because they knew they would return a blocked field goal 65 yards, they knew the Chargers would have 12 men on the field on a FG attempt, and they knew Mike Renfro would scamper 35+ yards on the only pass he caught.

Jay Z wrote: The Oilers strategized their way into giving up 317 passing yards? That was better than Fouts and company did in all but 3 regular season games. What happened on the first drive of each half? Were the Oilers just giving the Chargers a false sense of security?

The most damaging INT to the Chargers chances came when a short pass bounced off the hands of a tight end and into the air. What did the Oilers knowledge have to do with that play?

Other than the INTs, the Oilers defensive effort was unexceptional. Several other plays had a huge impact on the game that had nothing to do with the Chargers passing game. Plus the Oilers holding and moving the ball a bit, not turning it over and giving the Chargers a short field.

Apparently the Oilers' knowledge was so foolproof that they could let the Chargers move the ball at will, because they could intercept the ball any time they wanted. And they could afford to give up 14 points despite a crippled offense, because they knew they would return a blocked field goal 65 yards, they knew the Chargers would have 12 men on the field on a FG attempt, and they knew Mike Renfro would scamper 35+ yards on the only pass he caught.

You'd have to ask Bum Phillips that, maybe Wade was on staff at the time, I don't remember. But as you know yards are not the only factor in pass defense.

In regular season Fouts completed 62% of his passes. In the playoff upset it was 53%. And his passer rating for the game was 36.3, they threw 5 picks with no touchdowns . . . so I don't know what the Oilers knew, but since they didn't have Pastorini or Earl Campbell they had to really work to run the ball, which they did.

So I don't know the answer, but when I saw the game it seemed like San Diego was frustrated in their passing game. Maybe the Oilers had a tip, maybe not. But whatever they did, IMO, worked fairly well.

JohnTurney wrote:

Jay Z wrote: The Oilers strategized their way into giving up 317 passing yards? That was better than Fouts and company did in all but 3 regular season games. What happened on the first drive of each half? Were the Oilers just giving the Chargers a false sense of security?

The most damaging INT to the Chargers chances came when a short pass bounced off the hands of a tight end and into the air. What did the Oilers knowledge have to do with that play?

Other than the INTs, the Oilers defensive effort was unexceptional. Several other plays had a huge impact on the game that had nothing to do with the Chargers passing game. Plus the Oilers holding and moving the ball a bit, not turning it over and giving the Chargers a short field.

Apparently the Oilers' knowledge was so foolproof that they could let the Chargers move the ball at will, because they could intercept the ball any time they wanted. And they could afford to give up 14 points despite a crippled offense, because they knew they would return a blocked field goal 65 yards, they knew the Chargers would have 12 men on the field on a FG attempt, and they knew Mike Renfro would scamper 35+ yards on the only pass he caught.

You'd have to ask Bum Phillips that, maybe Wade was on staff at the time, I don't remember. But as you know yards are not the only factor in pass defense.

In regular season Fouts completed 62% of his passes. In the playoff upset it was 53%. And his passer rating for the game was 36.3, they threw 5 picks with no touchdowns . . . so I don't know what the Oilers knew, but since they didn't have Pastorini or Earl Campbell they had to really work to run the ball, which they did.

So I don't know the answer, but when I saw the game it seemed like San Diego was frustrated in their passing game. Maybe the Oilers had a tip, maybe not. But whatever they did, IMO, worked fairly well.

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.

Jay Z wrote:
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.