Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Both teams had a run of contention in the mid-70s, albeit they didn't win a playoff game.

Who was better and who do you think might have been more of a SB threat had they gotten past the divisional playoffs?

1974-1976 St. Louis Cardinals (I'll throw in the '77 team up until the Thanksgiving disaster against Miami)
1975-1977 Baltimore Colts

Probably the Cardinals, especially in 1976. They would have had home field if they would have won those close late-season games against Dallas and Washington.

As for the 1975-77 Colts, I just don't see them in the Super Bowl. They ran into the defending World Champ Steelers in 1975 and 76 in the playoffs, and in 77, they needed a bad call against the Pats just to make the playoffs. And, even if they beat the Raiders, I don't see them winning in Denver.

There's something I've always remembered about the Cardinals 1974-76. During this period I was listening to a St. Louis radio KMOX sports call in show. A caller lamented about most Super Bowls being dull. The host said something like "If the Cardinals coached by Don Coryell with Hart, Metcalf, Gray get in the Super Bowl you won't see dull football."

Maybe wishful thinking, but a point worth considering.

I'd go with the Colts, who effectively neutralized Irsay (with the exception of Marchibroda's near 1976 resignation) during their run, and were presumably poised to continue until Jones went down in '78. Bidwell's idiotic management style of not allowing Coryell a say in the draft and forcing him out after '77 show that they were doomed.

Cardinals beat the Colts in 1976, so Cardinals for me. Colts couldn't beat the Raiders at home in the playoffs despite two returns for touchdowns. Just weren't good enough to win a playoff game.

The Colts had a better defensive line than the Cardinals (John Dutton, Fred Cook, Mike Barnes and Joe Ehrmann vs. Leo Brooks, Ron Yankowski, Bob Bell and Charlie Davis).

I think the Colts were a slightly better team. Their three key offensive players Jones/Mitchell/Carr were each in that era slightly better than Hart/Metcalf-Otis/Gray, although there was a more of a gap between Jones and Jim Hart. Hart was a good QB, but from 1975-77, Bert Jones was Tom Brady Sr. The Colts offense from 1975-77 were numbers 2,1,6 in points scored, respectively, while the Cards O was 9,8,7 respectively from 1974-76. The defenses were closer to even.

Rupert Patrick wrote:I think the Colts were a slightly better team. Their three key offensive players Jones/Mitchell/Carr were each in that era slightly better than Hart/Metcalf-Otis/Gray, although there was a more of a gap between Jones and Jim Hart. Hart was a good QB, but from 1975-77, Bert Jones was Tom Brady Sr. The Colts offense from 1975-77 were numbers 2,1,6 in points scored, respectively, while the Cards O was 9,8,7 respectively from 1974-76. The defenses were closer to even.

Carr only had one good year out of the Colts' 3 playoff years, whereas Gray was effective all three years of the Cardinals' peak. I would take "Metcalf-Otis" over Mitchell-whomever collectively, I guess. Mitchell was better than Metcalf, though Metcalf was more explosive by far. But I like the total combo of Cardinals runners better. Not that impressed by Bill Olds or Roosevelt Leaks, I guess. Don McCauley was a weird player, two specialties, short yardage running and pass receiving.

I think in a playoff type match up the Cardinals would outgain the Colts. The Cardinals' excellent offensive line would be able to handle the Colts' front four without too much trouble.

But the one thing the Colts excelled at in the playoffs is turnover differential; +6 for their three games. So if the Colts can get some well timed turnovers, they would have a chance. If they can't gain through turnovers, the Cardinals would win.

SixtiesFan wrote:There's something I've always remembered about the Cardinals 1974-76. During this period I was listening to a St. Louis radio KMOX sports call in show. A caller lamented about most Super Bowls being dull. The host said something like "If the Cardinals coached by Don Coryell with Hart, Metcalf, Gray get in the Super Bowl you won't see dull football."

Maybe wishful thinking, but a point worth considering.

Agreed, and it's unfortunate we didn't see that explosive offense face off against the Steelers or Raiders. Terry Metcalf was a special talent, not sure if the career stats really portray that to fans too young to have seen him in action. Metcalf was what we all thought Reggie Bush would be, and I believe he still holds a very obscure NFL record. Did some research on the matter, and think Metcalf remains the NFL king for all purpose yards per game average over a single season by a RB. A fun, dynamic player with unbelievable quickness.

We'll never know if the Cards would have made things "not boring" against the Steel Curtain in a hypo-SB between the two at that time. Great defense usually beats great offense as evidenced in SBXIX & SBXLVIII at the expense of '84 Dolphins & '13 Broncos respectively - both offenses quite more potent than Cards. Heck, we all saw what Steelers did to those Colts both '75 & '76 divisionals.

A bit off-topic but not wanting to start new thread, what Cardinals 'big-three' do you prefer - Hart/Metcalf/Gray or Lomax/Ottis A/Roy Green?