Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Was anxious for 7DnBrnc53s reply

Many would probably say the 55-10 demolition to SF in SB XXIV but the Broncos were never in that game
Also, SB XXXXVIII Vs. the Seattle.
Again, they were never in the game

Those were definitely excruciating for DB fans
but for me the playoff losses to Jacksonville in the 1996 playoffs and the loss to Baltimore in Payton's first season with the Broncos
were more painful because they should have won those games.

since1981 wrote:Was anxious for 7DnBrnc53s reply

Many would probably say the 55-10 demolition to SF in SB XXIV but the Broncos were never in that game
Also, SB XXXXVIII Vs. the Seattle.
Again, they were never in the game

Those were definitely excruciating for DB fans
but for me the playoff losses to Jacksonville in the 1996 playoffs and the loss to Baltimore in Payton's first season with the Broncos
were more painful because they should have won those games.

If I'm a Denver fan, my take would be that the Jags-loss was immediately soothed by what happened the following two years. Although I believe it was Shannon Sharpe who said, paraphrasing, "Even if we won the next five SBs the pain from that loss would still never go away." I'd feel the same way about SBXLVIII vs Seattle considering what would happen just two years later. Still, both losses quite painful. At the immediate time, it looked very much like it was Elway's last shot; and that drubbing to Hawks 17 years later many even outside Denver felt Broncos would win.

It, IMO, would be SBXXIV, 55-10! Yes, Niners were clear favorites, but simply the way Denver gave them no semblance at all of a game. This after Elway said (quote on cover of SI), "We'll show up!" Giving Giants - and Eagles - quite the games albeit both at Mile High made it seem they were 'tougher', better ready this time around, to handle the NFC's best. Am I the only one who remembers Matt Millen picking Elway up off the ground and grabbing his jersey as he was trying to get back in the huddle so he could give him 'words of encouragement' which I guess John had no choice but to have to hear. Yes, that game indeed would kill me most if I were a Bronco fan; served as the epidomy of their painful '80s SB failures. '97/98 would arrive soon enough, and so - but much later - would SBL, for Wade.

BD Sullivan wrote:

Saban wrote:Cleveland Browns: 55 to 7 loss to Green Bay in 1967 was probably the most humiliating. Browns considered themselves about equal to the mighty Packers until then.

The worst for the franchise, IMO, was the 1958 Pat Summerall field goal game won by the Giants 13 to 10...There was a big controversial call that went the Giants way in the Summerall game.

As far as humiliating losses. I'd go two years after that, when they lost 51-3 in Minnesota. The Vikings scored the first NINE times they had the ball and only punted once:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/b ... 090min.htm

Regarding the 1958 regular season game against the Giants, the controversial call was the non-fumble call on Gifford.

The 51 to 3 loss to the Vikings was another example of the Browns post Dallas game letdowns suffered during the years 1966-69. There was also the 34 to 0 loss to the Colts in the 1968 NFL championship, the 31 to 14 loss to Detroit in 1967, and the 30 to 6 loss in the 1967 runnerup bowl, but I don't know if you can count that as that game was really a glorified exhibition game (a hinky dinky game in a hinky dinky town, etc.).

I have read that game films showed that Gifford did catch and fumble the ball and it was called an incomplete pass by referee Barry. Summerall probably does not get the opportunity to kick his game winning field goal if Gifford's fumble was correctly called. Paul Brown complained to the Commissioner and Barry never worked another Browns game.

since1981 wrote:Was anxious for 7DnBrnc53s reply

Many would probably say the 55-10 demolition to SF in SB XXIV but the Broncos were never in that game
Also, SB XXXXVIII Vs. the Seattle.
Again, they were never in the game

Those were definitely excruciating for DB fans
but for me the playoff losses to Jacksonville in the 1996 playoffs and the loss to Baltimore in Payton's first season with the Broncos
were more painful because they should have won those games.

I vote for Super Bowl XXIV for Denver. Elway had a terrible day passing; he was overthrowing receivers, underthrowing receivers; everything but hitting them in stride. When people talk about Steve Atwater as a great hitter, I always think back to Jerry Rice bouncing off him and running in for the first score. (I then think about him taking down the Nigerian Nightmare on MNF. Kind of balances it out.)

As a Bills fan, my vote is for Super Bowl XXVII. 52-17. Nine turnovers. 6 times failing to gain one yard needed for a first down or a touchdown.

Other opinions...

San Fran...surprised no one yet has mentioned '72 divisional vs Dallas. SBXLVII though is understandable to place instead.

Rams...overall, of course, would be SBXXXVI-loss to Pats. As for strictly LA...you could say '67 1st-round 28-7 loss to Pack, '76 NFCC-loss to Vikes as already mentioned (good-enough chance Rams win a hypo-SBXI), '78 NFCC being that Rams beat Steelers regular season (and not in finale as in '75), '89 NFCC only because Rams weren't strangers to beating SF on the road and actually almost did sweep them that regular season as Awesome as Niners actually were, and for a 'dark-horse' candidate...losing to Dallas in '80 wild card. The way they played all regular season, especially that penultimate Monday Nighter vs Dallas themselves, they seemed to be real SB-win-capable in an evenly-matched playoff field (almost beating Steelers year prior only adds to such optimism).

Oilers? To me it's '93 divisional vs Montana's Chiefs. Every reason to feel they, despite obvious in-house turmoil, represent AFC. They losing setting up their eventual departure has to make this one a strong (Houston Oilers, that is) candidate. Titans? Yes, losing to Rams is a great one (beat them during regular season, tougher and at least looked more balanced going in) but I'm going to pick '00 divisional to Ravens. They looked even more powerful than the year before; and the fact that they lost despite burying Ravens statistically (and beat them in Balt reg season)...yes, they would have pounded G-men as well (and Raiders on the way, especially at home).

Vikings...'98 NFCC an obvious stout pick, but did they actually have a better chance to beat Broncos than '09 Vikes had beating Colts, or '87 Vikes had beating '87 Broncos? '98 had good-enough chance vs Elway/TD & Co but, to me, not as good as the other two vs their respective hypo-SB-opponents. Vikings/Broncos '87 vs Vikings/Colts '09? I actually pick Burnsie's bunch! Yes, '87 NFCC most disappointing Viking game, IMO. Beat 12-3 NO at Superdome, 44-10, then at 13-2 SF, so why not RFK as well (then pound Denver)?

Jets...'82 AFCC a good one (I really liked that Michaels/Todd/Freeman McNeil/Sack Exchange crew, especially the '81 campaign), but me personally trivializing that strike-shortened season (even though I really wanted them to beat Miami) prevents me from placing it #1. Loss at home to Bills the year prior serves as a better choice. Would have liked how they would have clashed against Bengals (did crush them at Riverfront a year later). '98 AFCC also not bad being they were ahead of Denver at Mile High, 10-0, early 2nd half. '04 divisional should at least be mentioned (yes, Jets should have won), but do they actually beat Pats (then Eagles)? Six years later a much better 'heartbreak to Steelers' choice in that had they had a slightly better QB, they likely make it to SBXLV and despite how hot GB was going in...hey, you never know.

Bucs losing '99 NFCC? Very understandable! Super-close to gettng past Rams in that 11-6 slugfest and yet another classic slugfest (vs Titans) would have taken place as well. If you're a Dungy-with-Bucs fan this has to rank #1 because knowing a simple '99 SB-berth would have prolonged his time there some.

Barely off the subject...the Raiders? Yes, Immaculate should be #1, but what about #2? Getting buried vs Bucs SBXXXVII has to be it (losing SBII as an AFC team to...Lombardi? Yeah, sort of understandable). What would have to kill Raider Nation is simply knowing had Al let Chucky stay, he leads Raiders to the Lombardi instead that very year (and, perhaps, no immediate fall-off in '03).

Denis Crawford wrote:The one Buccaneer game I can never watch again is the 1999 NFC Championship loss to the Rams. I don't blame the referees (anymore!!!!!!), because there is no guarantee the Bucs score even if Bert Emanuel's catch is ruled a catch. It's just the pain of how close the Bucs came to completely shutting down "The Greatest Show on Turf" on their homefield and winning behind a third string quarterback and the most vanilla offense since 1919.

Even in defeat that might be the most impressive performance of that era's Buccaneer defense. Warren Sapp and the d-line harassed Warner all day, Derrick Brooks made it is his mission to devastate Faulk every time he carried the ball and the secondary bottled up the trio of Rams receivers. I'd even argue that Brian Kelly had perfect coverage against Ricky Proehl....it's just Kurt Warner made the perfect throw. The only thing that dulled the pain was the 2002 Super Bowl title and even that won't get me to watch this game again.

That was a great Championship game, they forced the Rams to play their style and it was a defensive struggle and almost beat them. It was also the only 11-6 game in pro football history. What was an interesting contrast was the MNF game the following year when they had a rematch against the Rams in Week 16 and instead played the Rams style of wide open offense and got involved in a shootout, which the Bucs won 38-35 in the final minute of play. Both games were among the half dozen best games of each season.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Rams...overall, of course, would be SBXXXVI-loss to Pats. As for strictly LA...you could say '67 1st-round 28-7 loss to Pack, '76 NFCC-loss to Vikes as already mentioned (good-enough chance Rams win a hypo-SBXI), '78 NFCC being that Rams beat Steelers regular season (and not in finale as in '75), '89 NFCC only because Rams weren't strangers to beating SF on the road and actually almost did sweep them that regular season as Awesome as Niners actually were, and for a 'dark-horse' candidate...losing to Dallas in '80 wild card. The way they played all regular season, especially that penultimate Monday Nighter vs Dallas themselves, they seemed to be real SB-win-capable in an evenly-matched playoff field (almost beating Steelers year prior only adds to such optimism).

The 1950 NFL Championship had the Rams leading and on the verge of delivering the knockout blow to the Browns. Instead, Otto Graham has his own version of the The Drive and the Rams lose in the final minute.

Was anxious for 7DnBrnc53s reply

Many would probably say the 55-10 demolition to SF in SB XXIV but the Broncos were never in that game
Also, SB XXXXVIII Vs. the Seattle.
Again, they were never in the game

Those losses sucked, and the Jags loss in 96 sucked, but the Raven loss in the 2012 AFC Playoffs was the worst.

In those Super Bowls, the better team won. And, the Jags deserved to win in 96 as well.

In 2012, the Ravens were handed the game by the officials, and they got a miracle pass to tie the game because of some idiot safety. They had no business being in that game.

Teo wrote:As a Cowboys fan, The Catch would be no. 1.

that was a punch to the gut, but a SB loss is the ultimate pain, so I'll go with SB V. the Cowboys were clearly better than the Colts, but found a way to lose.

slats7 wrote:

Teo wrote:As a Cowboys fan, The Catch would be no. 1.

that was a punch to the gut, but a SB loss is the ultimate pain, so I'll go with SB V. the Cowboys were clearly better than the Colt, but found a way to lose.

I think that the Catch was worse for Dallas because it was the beginning of the end of their NFC dominance. SB V may have been a blessing in disguise. If they win with Morton, maybe they end up trading Staubach, and there is no way in heck they see five SB's in the 70's.