Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

NFL Network running an all-day ‘America’s Game’ marathon. Watching it before Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals. They’re on the ’69 Chiefs now. Makes me want to post this double-comparison post.

I got very much respect for all four of these teams. I do consider SBIII and SBIV as ‘upsets’, but barely; I technically see them as such. Two in a row really can’t be a fluke. It proved the AFL came of age; and at the worst time for the merger was already agreed upon and in-effect for the following year. Four real great teams, just that two of them (Colts, Vikings) wore that juggernaut tag on sleeves a whole lot better; and were the ones who actually lost. Jets & Chiefs possible ‘reverse paper tigers’ for that current thread? Each better RPTs than ’88 Forty Niners after all?

Anyway, ’70 Colts is now on (Bill Curry, Bubba Smith, Mike Curtis) and really want to focus.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:NFL Network running an all-day ‘America’s Game’ marathon. Watching it before Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals. They’re on the ’69 Chiefs now. Makes me want to post this double-comparison post.

I got very much respect for all four of these teams. I do consider SBIII and SBIV as ‘upsets’, but barely; I technically see them as such. Two in a row really can’t be a fluke. It proved the AFL came of age; and at the worst time for the merger was already agreed upon and in-effect for the following year. Four real great teams, just that two of them (Colts, Vikings) wore that juggernaut tag on sleeves a whole lot better; and were the ones who actually lost. Jets & Chiefs possible ‘reverse paper tigers’ for that current thread? Each better RPTs than ’88 Forty Niners after all?

Anyway, ’70 Colts is now on (Bill Curry, Bubba Smith, Mike Curtis) and really want to focus.

SB 3 was definitely an upset and a massive one. The Jets didn't really stop the Colts that day but they played as smart and opportunistic a game as you'll see. Plus lady luck. SB 4 was less of an upset. They play 20 times and Baltimore likely wins 18-19

There definitely have been whispers that the 1963 Chargers could've beaten Chicago. Shame they never got the chance. I wonder if there were any talks about scheduling a game between them...

Shame they never got the chance. I wonder if there were any talks about scheduling a game between them...

In late 1963 AFL Commissioner Joe Foss sent a letter to Pete Rozelle proposing such a matchup...... "The overriding fact is the establishment of a World Series of professional football is necessary for the progress of our game if we're to be true sportsmen and not merely businessmen in sports."

http://www.profootballhof.com/news/joe-foss-letter/

It would be interesting to see the contests from the original post.

I am guessing the '69 Chiefs would beat the '68 Jets though it could be a close game.
A lot would depend on the titanic clashes between Matt Snell and Willie Lanier/Bobby Bell.

On the other hand (and barring a Jets-like upset) I think the '68 Colts would probably have an easier time of it with the '69 Vikings. But ya never know...

sheajets wrote:SB 3 was definitely an upset and a massive one. The Jets didn't really stop the Colts that day but they played as smart and opportunistic a game as you'll see. Plus lady luck. SB 4 was less of an upset.

Jets outgained the Colts 337-324. Vikings soundly beat the Chiefs in 1970 opener, 27-10. I think the teams in both SB III & IV were evenly matched. The AFL teams had two HOF QBs in Namath and Dawson, while the NFL QBs were Morrall and Kapp. To me, that was the most noticeable difference in retrospect.

JuggernautJ wrote:On the other hand (and barring a Jets-like upset) I think the '68 Colts would probably have an easier time of it with the '69 Vikings. But ya never know...

They didn't in 1969.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 280min.htm

Didn't Bert Bell coin the phrase "On Any Given Sunday?"

The Vikings beating the Chiefs in 1970 came at the Met and was largely seen as a way for the Vikes to get some meaningless revenge for the SB IV loss. I've noted before that the NFL seemed to be trying to put the Chiefs in their place by virtue of their first two games: Open in Minnesota, followed by a MNF road game against the Colts. In the latter case, the Chiefs won in a blowout.

BD Sullivan wrote:The Vikings beating the Chiefs in 1970 came at the Met and was largely seen as a way for the Vikes to get some meaningless revenge for the SB IV loss.

The 1970 Chiefs missed the postseason by 1 game, so I'm not sure if, in retrospect, the Chiefs would think of that 1970 opening loss to the Vikes as meaningless. Also, Mike Garrett's fumble in that loss created a feud between him and Hank Stram, resulting in Garrett being sent to San Diego while in the prime of his career. Perhaps having Garrett's services throughout 1970 would have helped KC reach the postseason, and even the Super Bowl in 1971?