Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

*If the Packers' last drive had fizzed out after a few plays and the Cowboys ended up winning, would the game still be regarded as a "great game"?

*If the Cowboys had stopped Starr on the QB sneak and time had run out, would the game still be regarded as a "great game"? Would Dan Reeves HB Option pass to Rentzel be considered one of the greatest plays of all-time?

*Was Pete Rozelle wrong to not postpone and/or move the game to a warmer location?

*If the Packers' last drive had fizzed out after a few plays and the Cowboys ended up winning, would the game still be regarded as a "great game"?
>>>> IMO, yes, in the same way that the Rams/Titans Super Bowl in 2000 was a great game, because it would have been a successful goal line stand by Cowboys. Although it was 3rd down, the Packers were out of timeouts and Starr called for a run, instead of a pass that would have stopped the clock if it had been incomplete, or going for a field goal to tie the game, so I think that Starr and Lombardi would have been judged badly for that choice of play.

*If the Cowboys had stopped Starr on the QB sneak and time had run out, would the game still be regarded as a "great game"? (Same as above)

*Would Dan Reeves HB Option pass to Rentzel be considered one of the greatest plays of all-time?
>>>>IMO, no-- it would have proved to be the 17-14 game winner, but it there was still an entire quarter left to play when it happened.

*Was Pete Rozelle wrong to not postpone and/or move the game to a warmer location?
>>> Definitely not. That would have been a silly decision. Postpone to when? The Sunday before the Super Bowl? And move to where? It wasn't the first time that a title game was played in brutal weather.

I think the point of the first question was that the Packers' last drive wouldn't have gone deep in Dallas territory, and in that case I'd say the game wouldn't be remembered, except for how cold it was.

If the Cowboys had stopped Starr's quarterback sneak, though, I do think it would be remembered as a great game.

Bob Gill wrote:I think the point of the first question was that the Packers' last drive wouldn't have gone deep in Dallas territory, and in that case I'd say the game wouldn't be remembered, except for how cold it was.

If the Cowboys had stopped Starr's quarterback sneak, though, I do think it would be remembered as a great game.

I agree. If the Cowboys had won the Ice Bowl and gone on to defeat the Raiders in Super Bowl II, pro football history would have been different. Don Meredith might have played past 1968. Vince Lombardi would be less talked about today, or at least the Lombardi Trophy would be named something else.

SixtiesFan wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:I think the point of the first question was that the Packers' last drive wouldn't have gone deep in Dallas territory, and in that case I'd say the game wouldn't be remembered, except for how cold it was.

If the Cowboys had stopped Starr's quarterback sneak, though, I do think it would be remembered as a great game.

I agree. If the Cowboys had won the Ice Bowl and gone on to defeat the Raiders in Super Bowl II, pro football history would have been different. Don Meredith might have played past 1968. Vince Lombardi would be less talked about today, or at least the Lombardi Trophy would be named something else.

I know you're not a Lombardi booster but do you really think he would be that much less of a legend if he "only" had one Super Bowl and four NFL championships instead of two and five? Either way, it was a great game...and, thank god, there was no replay delay to confirm that Starr crossed the goal line before a knee touched the ground.

SixtiesFan wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:I think the point of the first question was that the Packers' last drive wouldn't have gone deep in Dallas territory, and in that case I'd say the game wouldn't be remembered, except for how cold it was.

If the Cowboys had stopped Starr's quarterback sneak, though, I do think it would be remembered as a great game.

I agree. If the Cowboys had won the Ice Bowl and gone on to defeat the Raiders in Super Bowl II, pro football history would have been different. Don Meredith might have played past 1968. Vince Lombardi would be less talked about today, or at least the Lombardi Trophy would be named something else.

Of course I can't find it now, but I read an article about five years back that speculated that if Meredith had not retired after the '68 season, Roger Staubach may have talked Tom Landry into trading him. As a 29 year-old rookie, he didn't have 3-4 years to waste on "seasoning" on the bench, as was Landry's habit.

JohnH19 wrote:

SixtiesFan wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:I think the point of the first question was that the Packers' last drive wouldn't have gone deep in Dallas territory, and in that case I'd say the game wouldn't be remembered, except for how cold it was.

If the Cowboys had stopped Starr's quarterback sneak, though, I do think it would be remembered as a great game.

I agree. If the Cowboys had won the Ice Bowl and gone on to defeat the Raiders in Super Bowl II, pro football history would have been different. Don Meredith might have played past 1968. Vince Lombardi would be less talked about today, or at least the Lombardi Trophy would be named something else.

I know you're not a Lombardi booster but do you really think he would be that much less of a legend if he "only" had one Super Bowl and four NFL championships instead of two and five? Either way, it was a great game...and, thank god, there was no replay delay to confirm that Starr crossed the goal line before a knee touched the ground.

Lombardi would be remembered, but as a less mythic figure. Would there have been a prime time Lombardi documentary on CBS in 1968 if the Cowboys had won the Ice Bowl?

In a related subject, what would the NFL be like if the Confederacy had won the Civil War?

rhickok1109 wrote:In a related subject, what would the NFL be like if the Confederacy had won the Civil War?

About like the South African rugby league was during the days of apartheid.

Mark L. Ford wrote:>>> Definitely not. That would have been a silly decision. Postpone to when? The Sunday before the Super Bowl? And move to where? It wasn't the first time that a title game was played in brutal weather.

I don't know if it would have been that silly of a decision. The HFA was merely rotational back then, so moving the game to a neutral site wouldn't have been taking away a home field advantage that was "earned" by the Packers. The Super Bowl was being played in Miami, so I don't think moving the NFL Title game to a neutral site would have been unprecedented, or all that difficult logistically.

As for the date, the NFL and AFL title games in 1969 were only one week prior to the Super Bowl. I think in some ways it might be better in general to only have one week between the AFC/NFC conference championship games and the Super Bowl.

Yeah, it wasn't the first time that a title game was played in brutal weather, but the level of "brutalness" was/is unprecedented. Perhaps the 1945 title game could be comparable from a temperature standpoint, but not really because I believe the temperature for the 1945 game was 5 degrees while the Ice Bowl was -13 degrees (although PFR lists it as -2 degrees...go figure). Also, the field itself was virtually unplayable due to the condensation caused by Lombardi's "electric blanket". At what temperature would you consider postponing a football game? -20 below? -30 below? Never?


Just a note...as I type this message, I just came in from -16 weather outside.