Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Two, obviously, 'flawed' SB champs. One not having a good run-game whilst the other not having a good run-D; or at least not during the regular season - especially down the stretch! Once the '06 playoffs were under way, run-D as well as entire D in-general were astounding barring 1st-half of the AFCCG vs NE. And, yes, just a simple Jay Cutler at QB may have been just enough for those Dungy/Peyton Colts to not win-it-all!

In either case, who do you think was better for its era and why?

The way championships are set up is that you need to be the best team on a particular given day. The Colts were in those instances of 1970 and 2006 to take the titles. There are plenty of cases where the Super Bowl "Favorites" did not take the crown. Were the Giants a better team the rest of the season against an undefeated Patriots team? That is what makes football such a great sport, the any given Sunday theory is real. A good scheme executed by inferior players can make all the difference as well as multiple other variables.

Pretty intriguing hypothetical matchup, the more you look at it. Not only considered the 'lesser' two of the Colts World Champs (to both '58 & '59), but likely by most seen as lesser than not only '64/'67/'68 ('71??), but also runner-up 2009 and a few of the other '00s installments that fell short in the post-season; 2005 in-particular.

Sure-enough Mike Curtis & Co would have it pretty easy vs that Addai-led running game. But the Peyton-led passing game would have it easy on their end; 1970's defense having no choice but to not play honest.

Baltimore's running attack 'led' by Bulaich would have a chance vs Indy's regular season run-D; but likely hardly no chance at all vs the post-season version! Indy's pass-D was clearly the stronger part of that D as Baltimore's pass game was the stronger part of their offense.

Just for fun, I went to whatifsports and played ten games at RCA between the two. The visiting 1970 installment went 7-for-10! And then I played ten games at Memorial only for the series to, actually, tie at 5-apiece! In each of the twenty games, I set each team to "favor the pass" on offense which would be the sensible strategy in both cases.

I guess I'd personally lean on the latter version. Peyton's passing attack being more effective vs their opposition than U/Morrall could be vs theirs. 2006's defense overall as a unit getting it done better vs what they'd be up against than '70 despite their obvious strength vs the run IMHO. Peyton the MVP.

Not just that, but I opine that if you place Indy into the '70 playoffs, 'readjusting inflation', Dungy's bunch finishes atop the mountain; even over Cuozzo's best-record Vikings. Peyton making the difference with me in this not-too-dominant field with relatively not much in the way of real serious QB-ing.


PS - Of course I haven't weighed in on either's special teams (pretty important thing to leave out, especially if Balt has a significant advantage here). Who do you all think was better in that department?

Better for its own era - I'd say the 1970 Colts because it was kind of the swan song of the 1960s Colts who may have won more championships under the current playoff format. This was kind of the twilight for the 1968 Colts - lost the Super Bowl but were still much more dominant than any of the 2000s Colts. So, being just two years from that, I think the 1970 Colts were maybe better for their era. They shut out the Bengals and defeated Oakland in the playoffs - both tough things to do. Defense got 4 turnovers against the Raiders and in the SB against Dallas. People call it the Blooper Bowl, but the Colts caused 4 or more turnovers 6 times in the regular season.

Not as familiar with the special teams on these teams, other than the Jim O'Brien game winner and Vinateri. Hard to speculate on a head-to-head game, the eras are so different. But I think that with a good amount of players and from the 68 team and some from before that, I'd go with the 1970 Colts as being the better team from their era.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:Better for its own era - I'd say the 1970 Colts because it was kind of the swan song of the 1960s Colts who may have won more championships under the current playoff format. This was kind of the twilight for the 1968 Colts - lost the Super Bowl but were still much more dominant than any of the 2000s Colts. So, being just two years from that, I think the 1970 Colts were maybe better for their era. They shut out the Bengals and defeated Oakland in the playoffs - both tough things to do. Defense got 4 turnovers against the Raiders and in the SB against Dallas. People call it the Blooper Bowl, but the Colts caused 4 or more turnovers 6 times in the regular season.

Not as familiar with the special teams on these teams, other than the Jim O'Brien game winner and Vinateri. Hard to speculate on a head-to-head game, the eras are so different. But I think that with a good amount of players and from the 68 team and some from before that, I'd go with the 1970 Colts as being the better team from their era.

The irony in my picking Indy over Balt is that I am old school and feel generally that most 21st Century SB champs aren't quite as strong as yesteryear's. And 2006 had its flaws. But what I really had in mind, of course, was who they became once the playoffs began. Yes, the defense suddenly came of life. And, yes, it also included Peyton not being so up-to-par leading into the Super Bowl barring, of course, the comeback over NE. Pretty strange how the D came to life as Peyton stepped back, then both falter 1st half of AFCCG, but then both come together in the second half - and then, after trailing 14-6 early, both get it done together in the rain for that Lombardi.

With no doubt, "adjusting inflation", I'll place '64, '67, '68, and sure-enough '71 (and '65) over 2006 as well as placing '06 beneath those strong non-advancing '00s teams mentioned. I do place '71 over '70. Their D in '71 was far more superior but the passing and running games flipflopped. Bulaich & Co were stout! A much better recipe for winning a championship than the year prior (running over passing).

But the playoff field was quite stronger in '71 along with stronger QB-ing. By the AFCCG, the Super Bowl-ready Dolphins were just too much for a now pass-game-lacking Balt. Eventual-Champs, Dallas, and also 11-3 KC (just two years removed from SBIV) were too much as well. "Adjusted for inflation", I don't see an at-their-best 2006 Indy being able to get through such competition either.

1970 Colts still a real good team (perhaps merely 'great'; they were 14-2-1), but not at all on par with those aforementioned great '60s teams that didn't get it done. They simply were in a season where the field was less difficult and took advantage - which is good (poetic justice, perhaps) because that core should have gotten at least one Trophy in the first place!

Back to special teams...of course Adam over straight-ahead kicking O'Brien by miles! More in-mind, of course, was their kickoff and punt teams.

Sadly, the biggest similarity between the teams was how little they met expectations. Yes, they both got their SB wins but both teams were capable of winning more championships and didnt get it done.
67 and 68 for Baltimore and 03,04 and 05 for Indy, though they also could have won it all in 07, 08 and 09.
Manning was a great player but his teams were snakebit alot in the playoffs with the same core group.

People talk about Manning's success against Brady and NE but that was with Denver, not Indy ...

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:Better for its own era - I'd say the 1970 Colts because it was kind of the swan song of the 1960s Colts who may have won more championships under the current playoff format. This was kind of the twilight for the 1968 Colts - lost the Super Bowl but were still much more dominant than any of the 2000s Colts. So, being just two years from that, I think the 1970 Colts were maybe better for their era. They shut out the Bengals and defeated Oakland in the playoffs - both tough things to do. Defense got 4 turnovers against the Raiders and in the SB against Dallas. People call it the Blooper Bowl, but the Colts caused 4 or more turnovers 6 times in the regular season.

Not as familiar with the special teams on these teams, other than the Jim O'Brien game winner and Vinateri. Hard to speculate on a head-to-head game, the eras are so different. But I think that with a good amount of players and from the 68 team and some from before that, I'd go with the 1970 Colts as being the better team from their era.

The 1970 Colts had very good special teams, especially in the return game (although this didn't show in SB V). Jim Duncan averaged 35 yards per kick return and Ron Gardin averaged 12 yards per punt return. O'Brien and Lee weren't great, but they weren't terrible either.

It seemed like those Peyton Manning Colt teams were great playing with a lead, but usually unable to come from behind because their defense was average (which makes their AFC Championship win over NE all the more remarkable...they never beat NE, they never could come from behind, yet they did both that day). I think the 70 Colts were better than the 2006 Colts due to their defense, but could really go either way.