Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Been watching ‘Mad Men’ as of late; a very, very fine show by the way. I’m now on Season 6 which begins on December of ’67. A possible slot for a ‘Super Bowl’-ad is discussed (the word, ‘Super Bowl’ is used) which begged the question if the game still had yet to be called that by the general public. Not that it’s ‘Gospel’, but Wiki states that it was “the second AFL-NFL World Championship Game” but retroactively referred to as ‘Super Bowl II’ and even shows a (dated-looking, red lettering) logo as such. Was just curious as to exactly when the event started officially being named it and if, perhaps, MM got it wrong by having it named that on the episode. I also have a question to what the latest status is on the game film. Any chance of the entire telecast being on tape anytime soon, if ever?

That all said, may as well make this a general thread on the Packers/Raiders event itself than just having it be to answer my two questions. Was a rather humdrum as heck 33-14 game; Raiders scoring last (TD). With the Pack obviously a step below in ’67 - not quite as strong as their other title squads of the decade - it proved that the NFL was still, if only for just one more year, more superior; and over a 13-1 AFL champ to boot. Lombardi’s last hurrah in Title Town, the closest that Madden (then Raiders’ LB-coach) would ever come to HC-ing against him, Upshaw’s rookie year while playing a fine game himself, Steve Sabol calling it one of the more aesthetically-pleasing-to-the-eye/film of the SBs (color-contrasts of the uniforms in the Florida sunshine, palm trees in the background, Raiders’ dark and more-intimidating unis making it ‘seem’ at least that they were on even-ground with the Dynasty at-hand, etc...

Any other takes? Perhaps from those who may have been around for it? Either in anticipation of, or during, or after the event? Or from those who weren’t around but may have something to add.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Lombardi’s last hurrah in Title Town, the closest that Madden (then Raiders’ LB-coach) would ever come to HC-ing against him

Lombardi and Madden would have met in an October 1970 MNF game.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Been watching ‘Mad Men’ as of late; a very, very fine show by the way. I’m now on Season 6 which begins on December of ’67. A possible slot for a ‘Super Bowl’-ad is discussed (the word, ‘Super Bowl’ is used) which begged the question if the game still had yet to be called that by the general public. Not that it’s ‘Gospel’, but Wiki states that it was “the second AFL-NFL World Championship Game” but retroactively referred to as ‘Super Bowl II’ and even shows a (dated-looking, red lettering) logo as such. Was just curious as to exactly when the event started officially being named it and if, perhaps, MM got it wrong by having it named that on the episode. I also have a question to what the latest status is on the game film. Any chance of the entire telecast being on tape anytime soon, if ever?

Rozelle and the networks were still trying to force the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" title on everybody, but the term "Super Bowl" is more concise and rolls off the tongue better, and everybody else was using it. By the following season, Rozelle finally gave up and they called it the Super Bowl.

The videotapes of the network broadcasts of the first two Super Bowls were recorded over by the networks (it is said they recorded Soap Operas over them), although a good deal of Super Bowl I was found from that guy who found the tape in his attic. Somebody took the radio broadcasts and NFL Films footage and team game films and spliced them together into the closest thing we have to a game broadcast for the first two Super Bowls. If you check on that site where people upload videos, who knows, you might find where somebody may have posted an audio/video merge of Super Bowl I.

Rupert Patrick wrote:Rozelle and the networks were still trying to force the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" title on everybody, but the term "Super Bowl" is more concise and rolls off the tongue better, and everybody else was using it. By the following season, Rozelle finally gave up and they called it the Super Bowl.

That's my memory of it, too. Super Bowl was the name the public had already decided on, and it took the bigwigs a year to recognize that and forget about trying something else.

Bob Gill wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:Rozelle and the networks were still trying to force the "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" title on everybody, but the term "Super Bowl" is more concise and rolls off the tongue better, and everybody else was using it. By the following season, Rozelle finally gave up and they called it the Super Bowl.

That's my memory of it, too. Super Bowl was the name the public had already decided on, and it took the bigwigs a year to recognize that and forget about trying something else.

They couldn't have kept calling it the AFL-NLF World Championship Game much longer, because the AFL would cease to exist with the formal merger of the leagues.

As someone around (in high school) back then, the general public called it the Super Bowl leading up to both Super Bowl I and II. On the day of Super Bowl II, there was a power outage where I lived. causing me to miss the first half on TV.

Before the power came back on, I went outside and started the car and turned on the car radio. I turned the dial and found the radio broadcast. The score was 13-7 Packers, late in the first half. Soon after, Don Chandler kicked a field goal and the half ended with the Packers up 16-7. It looked like the Packers had the game in hand.

I went back in the house and the power was back on and I could see the rest of the game on TV. The Packers made it a rout in the second half. Looking back, you would have thought it would be closer as the Raiders were a young team and the Packers were getting old. And the Raiders were 13-1 and way better than the rest of the AFL that year.

If the Raiders had somehow won Super Bowl II it would have been the biggest upset in sports history, much more of a shock than the Jets beating the Colts a year later. That's how huge the Lombardi-Packers mystique was.

Did not see the game live, but it has the classic blueprint of a young, talented team, not quite ready to take that final step. The Packers had a massive edge in experience, and the players knew it was likely to be Lombardi's last game on the Packer sideline. The Raiders really weren't tested in beating Houston to win the AFL, and made the kinds of mistakes young teams do in this situation. Oakland was also well aware of what happened to KC the year before, and representing the AFL was a big deal in this title game.

This was not a great matchup for the Raiders. The Packers led the league 5 years in a row (1964-68) in fewest yards given up passing. 1967 was the best of those years. Only the 1973 Dolphins were better in a 14 game schedule. The AFL and the Raiders were still too dependent on long passing. Also, the Raiders defensive stats were generally pretty good, but they gave up about 15 yards a completion. They changed their starters a couple times during that season. Not on the same level as the Packers. Starr took advantage a couple of times.

I'm not sure how the 1970s Steelers would have done against the Packers either. Maybe they could've shut down Bradshaw's long throws. I think the 1970s Dolphins probably matched up better.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Upshaw’s rookie year while playing a fine game himself

Upshaw was beaten like a drum that game by Henry Jordan. Despite the number of sacks the Raiders had during the 1967 season, I think the Packers had a decided advantage in all the defensive areas. Jordan and Willie Davis didn't allow the Raiders offense to get started. The Raiders were handicapped by Clem Daniels' injury, Warren Wells hadn't exploded onto the scene, and the Packers could have their safeties play back while matching up their CBs 1-on-1 on the WRs and stopping the run with their front 7. As someone else said, the Packers were a bad matchup for the Raiders due to their pass defense strength. I think the Packers were also athletically superior to the Raiders in a general sense.

Jay Z wrote:This was not a great matchup for the Raiders. The Packers led the league 5 years in a row (1964-68) in fewest yards given up passing. 1967 was the best of those years. Only the 1973 Dolphins were better in a 14 game schedule. The AFL and the Raiders were still too dependent on long passing. Also, the Raiders defensive stats were generally pretty good, but they gave up about 15 yards a completion. They changed their starters a couple times during that season. Not on the same level as the Packers. Starr took advantage a couple of times.

I'm not sure how the 1970s Steelers would have done against the Packers either. Maybe they could've shut down Bradshaw's long throws. I think the 1970s Dolphins probably matched up better.

If we're talking about about the 1975-1979 Steelers, the Packers are in trouble. I'm struggling to think of any opponent Green Bay faced which had the firepower possessed by those Steelers teams. Both Swann and Stallworth could run any route, and were lethal after the catch. Those old highlights you see of Swann and Stallworth catching passes behind defenses don't tell the whole picture of the damage they did on shorter routes. Bradshaw liked to throw downfield, but we're not talking about Daryle Lamonica here. Whether it was bubble screens, or 10-15 yard patterns, Swann and Stallworth were very dangerous, and could not be intimidated. And with Franco Harris in the backfield, that's another problem for Green Bay's defense. It's a pick your poison type of situation. I think those mature Steelers teams would have beaten the 1966-67 Cowboys teams decisively.