Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Posted: **Fri Jul 12, 2024 3:22 pm**

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 2:09 pm
sheajets wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:22 pm
Crazy Packers Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2024 4:02 pm 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!

Two things you could say about Super Bowl IX in this conversation is that the game was within a single score into the fourth quarter, and for that there was a call on a possible fumble recovery in the fourth quarter that could be viewed as controversial.

Posted: **Thu Jul 18, 2024 11:36 am**

SBXXII (Wash 42, Den 10) does not make it with me either. A plethora of things to say on how Denver's early 10-0 lead could have gotten even bigger by the end of the 1st Q. Statistically they had the upper hand as well. Washington was the one playing conservative as the Broncos were letting it all out - bomb to Nattiel on the first play from scrimmage the first example to give. It didn't look good for Washington at all. But the fact that it could have been worse helped to give them life thus the 35-0 explosion. The 'suspense' strictly in the 2nd Q would have to be..."can they make it 42 before half? 49??"

Now the second half (zero pts in the 3rd, another Redskin TD in the 4th and that's it)? If this were a "most boring HALF in a Super Bowl" thread, then I'd say that would be number one. The antithesis of the 1st half of SBXIII, it would be seen as.

Who knows what happens had Denver recovered that fumbled kickoff-return, or if that Doug Williams fumble play not being blown dead thus they going up 17-0? If I had to make a guess...thinking of what Sammy Baugh said 47 years earlier...it would have been 35-17 at the half!

Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The most 'boring' Super Bowl ever, IYO?

Re: The most 'boring' Super Bowl ever, IYO?

Re: The most 'boring' Super Bowl ever, IYO?