Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Posted: **Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm**

SixtiesFan wrote: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.

Posted: **Sun Oct 22, 2023 8:46 pm**

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

Posted: **Mon Oct 23, 2023 10:23 am**

Bryan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm 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.

Posted: **Fri Oct 27, 2023 4:57 am**

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 10:23 am
Bryan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm 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.

Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Games with deceptive final scores

Re: Games with deceptive final scores

Re: Games with deceptive final scores

Re: Games with deceptive final scores

Re: Games with deceptive final scores