Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Who. IYO, was simply the better team being that neither 11-3 squad actually played against each other in '72. If both teams trade places (conferences/schedules), do Steelers represent the NFC (over Dallas) as well? But if so, do they seriously dominate both their NFC playoff games as George Allen's bunch, indeed, did?

The way they handled GB & Dal, especially on defense, along with Shula still ISO winning the Big One. And though Allen no 'angel' either in that regard, he walloping Shula in their '67 finale play-in; and the 'new' NFC being basically seen as the old NFL are a collection of very understandable reasons to have picked Washington to defeat Miami outright.

And you can also entertain a hypo-SBVII "what-if" if you like between both Pit & Wash. But, perhaps, not the greatest idea being that, though the AFCCG was close on the scoreboard and the home-team did have their way at first, Miami pulled away thus not really a nail-biter in the end. And not "just" the Seiple fake either. You all just recently laid all this out for me. Heck, the plain "good" Browns have a stronger case of possibly having advanced against those unbeaten Champs-to-be. But maybe (maybe) Steelers pull it off had Morrall stayed in thus preserving "what-if"-reasoning. But I lean toward Miami still winning anyway vs the new-to-playoffs Steelers just coming off a Miracle the week prior.

I guess I have to lean with the "Over the Hill Gang" being the better team if only by just a bit. Remember (easy to forget) while Miami was 12-0 after Wk#12, the Redskins were actually 11-1! Division already being wrapped up explains those final two defeats at Dallas and home vs Buffalo respectively.

Washington the better team to me, but does George Allen actually beat Chuck Noll in a Super Bowl VII event? Harder question to answer but, gun-to-head, I still say Redskins. But then you think of how much Kilmer struggled in the actual vs-Miami event which took place. Can the still-developing Steel Curtain make #1 7 struggle miserably as well? But sure-enough Larry Brown plays a much better game! Yes, let's say Washington.

Though another year later with each team different enough, both played each other on MNF at Three Rivers in '73. Redskins at 5-2 vs Steelers at 6-1. An extremely understandable pairing for a prime time event given the year before! Despite Bradshaw not playing, the 'Burgh wins anyway, 21-16. Kilmer, Hanratty, and Gilliam each threw 2 INTs.

Thoughts?

PS - Charlie Watters said before that penultimate game in Dallas that he really wanted his team to win anyway, go into the playoffs on a better note and prove they could beat them (but, again, Wash had it all wrapped-up). He felt that they weren't the SB team everyone was making them out to be (near-future bulletin board material).

By 1973 the Redskins run game was horrible. While Larry Brown was still a pass catching threat he averaged 3.2 per carry. Slightly better than the 3.1 for the team. Halfway through the season Starke replaced the injured Rock at RT, otherwise the offense had the same players.

Bradshaw was still pretty bad in 1973. Although his 49% completion percentage was the best of the three quarterbacks his 8.3% interception percentage was worse than Hanrattys bad 7.2%. His 13.3 YPC was good but the lowest of the three. And his 11.8% sack percentage trailed the other two by a mile, 4.2% and 4.8%

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:15 pm By 1973 the Redskins run game was horrible. While Larry Brown was still a pass catching threat he averaged 3.2 per carry. Slightly better than the 3.1 for the team. Halfway through the season Starke replaced the injured Rock at RT, otherwise the offense had the same players.

Bradshaw was still pretty bad in 1973. Although his 49% completion percentage was the best of the three quarterbacks his 8.3% interception percentage was worse than Hanrattys bad 7.2%. His 13.3 YPC was good but the lowest of the three. And his 11.8% sack percentage trailed the other two by a mile, 4.2% and 4.8%

Yes, but you'd still like to think they always have the better chance to win even with a still-'green' Bradshaw. Once he took over the starting spot for good at the end of '74, though not quite of the '78/'79 variety just yet, he was ready-enough to lead them to that first World Championship which he, indeed, did. But perhaps he still may have not been 'ready' at the Coliseum vs that Washington D. Likely-enough, he struggles just as much as Kilmer did in real-time vs the 'No Name'. And you really couldn't have seen Hanratty doing any better.

As for a hypothetical Steelers/Redskins SBVII match - and I should have wrote this on the OP - if that were to have actually happened, it likely wouldn't have been because, say, the ball bounced a couple more times in Pittsburgh's favor along with no Seiple fake. No, they beating Miami at all wouldn't have been the more-likely reason. Instead, the more-likely reason for Pit-vs-Wash would have been because of what came even closer (quite closer) to happening one week prior - and that's Cleveland holding on for the upset thus knocking Miami out the way!

Yes, both teams would have been walking-on-air over what they just got accomplished: Steelers with their 'Immaculate' first-ever playoff win in only their second-ever playoff-appearance-period. And the Browns knocking off an unbeaten! But despite more playoff experience in the decades leading up, I really can't see Cleveland going into Three Rivers and advancing. They were 'good' enough to make the playoffs, good enough to at least split with the Steelers (they swept 8-6 Bengals too), but the Steelers were noticeably better.

Either way, considering the general Historic disrespect that the '72 Dolphins still get due to their soft schedule, had Washington won it all whether against Pittsburgh or even Cleveland - and considering just how many thought that they were going to beat Miami going into the real event in the first place- I don't think there would be many thinking that Miami would have beaten Washington had they averted getting upset in the AFC playoffs. So it was good that they actually did complete the entire deed along with beating them convincingly at that!

PS - Hmm...just imagine a Redskins/Browns SBVII! Allen/Skorich...Kilmer/Phipps...

Interesting factoid...Browns were 0-6 that pre-season!

I think the Steelers could beat the Skins in 72 if they don't over-commit to the run. There are some Packer players who think that they could have beat the Skins if they threw some of the time:

https://www.packers.com/news/bill-lueck ... heir-coach

The Skins were lucky to get to a SB with Kilmer. GB didn't open up the offense, and the Cowboys were banged-up (and very lucky to get out of SF with a win).

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 12:17 am I think the Steelers could beat the Skins in 72 if they don't over-commit to the run. There are some Packer players who think that they could have beat the Skins if they threw some of the time:

https://www.packers.com/news/bill-lueck ... heir-coach

The Skins were lucky to get to a SB with Kilmer. GB didn't open up the offense, and the Cowboys were banged-up (and very lucky to get out of SF with a win).

Dunno why the Packers would say that. They didn't have a passing game. Plus they threw 24 times that game. Besides the 30 they threw against the Bears, 22 was the most. No one except the RBs caught more than 19. The WRers caught 16,15, and 8. Washington only threw 14 times that game. The weather at 39F a factor?
The regular season game the GB QBs were 5-19 vs Washington.

Staubach not playing the entire season no doubt helped Washington. Kilmers comp%, int%, and YPC were a little bit above the league average, but he was rarely sacked and almost never fumbled.

A healthy Staubach vs a healthy Jurgensen playing full time?

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:15 pm Bradshaw was still pretty bad in 1973. Although his 49% completion percentage was the best of the three quarterbacks his 8.3% interception percentage was worse than Hanrattys bad 7.2%. His 13.3 YPC was good but the lowest of the three. And his 11.8% sack percentage trailed the other two by a mile, 4.2% and 4.8%

That kind of glosses over Bradshaw's playmaking ability. Before he got injured halfway through the year, the Steelers were 7-1 and Bradshaw had Pittsburgh as the highest scoring team in the NFL. Give me a QB who scores points and wins games, sack % be damned. Bradshaw returns from injury by coming off the bench and leading the Steelers in a furious rally against the Dolphins, and then goes 2-0 in his final two starts to salvage a postseason berth. The Steelers were 8-1 in Bradshaw's starts, 2-3 without him.

Sonny9 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 3:12 am Dunno why the Packers would say that. They didn't have a passing game. Plus they threw 24 times that game. Besides the 30 they threw against the Bears, 22 was the most. No one except the RBs caught more than 19. The WRers caught 16,15, and 8. Washington only threw 14 times that game. The weather at 39F a factor?
The regular season game the GB QBs were 5-19 vs Washington.

Staubach not playing the entire season no doubt helped Washington. Kilmers comp%, int%, and YPC were a little bit above the league average, but he was rarely sacked and almost never fumbled.

A healthy Staubach vs a healthy Jurgensen playing full time?

It's become accepted wisdom that the playoff game is all Devine's fault. I know everyone hated Devine. I'm not sure he was really worse than the rest of that motley coaching crew, just more hated.

As you mentioned, they threw the ball 24 times. 14 times in the first half! Plus a couple of sacks. Plus Hunter had a couple of runs, that's 28 times versus 27 carries for Brockington and Lane.

Hunter avoided INTs and I suppose he was a good leader. But he was sub Trent Dilfer in terms of talent, closer to Gifford Nielsen. Really replacement level, inadequate. Lousy completion percentage even for the time, given how little he actually threw. Yes, he could complete some passes, but you run some West Coast offense and I'm not confident he is going to be going up and down the field. He didn't have the ability, nor the receiving corps, also woefully inadequate with an ancient Dale, Glass, Staggers, and Garrett. Brockington and Lane didn't have depth either. There's no one else, no secret weapon to even get the ball. I can't imagine ANY coach coming up with a whole new offense for the playoffs, when there's no talent to put this offense into play.

That Packers team did have talent everywhere else, really good solid defense, good offensive line, Brockington and Lane, good special teams. But what a weakness. It was always going to doom them to one year, teams were going to dare them to pass at some point and they had no ability. I do think they beat the Cowboys or 49ers in the playoffs since they did in the regular season. They did not match up well with the Redskins since the Redskins also didn't turn the ball over and had great special teams as well. Then Knight, the one weakness, gets on a hot streak for a couple of games.

George Allen's M.O. was to take away the opposing team's best thing. He knew the Packers were not going to be successful passing, so he did a 5-2 defense to stop Brockington and Lane. Packers countered by passing more than usual. He challenged the Packers to throw.

Vs Steelers he would have tried to do something similar. Bradshaw could be good and could be not-so-good at that stage of his career. I don't think it's one of those things were we can say who'd win. My view it it would be any given Sunday thing... whoever executed better would win.

The X factor was special teams. Steelers were good enough, but Washington very good ... if they could have gotten to a Bobby Walden punt it could have turned the tide, or something like that.

Honestly think it's a coin toss.

Good discussion - I think the Redskins pass rush is too much and that would be the difference. The Redskins protect the QB. even in the playoffs, GB 24 atts 2 sacks, Dallas 20 atts 3 sacks. Miami 11 atts 2 sacks. Overall 55 atts and 6 sacks vs 60 atts and 3 sacks given up

While this may be of little value the two teams tied in preseason 10-10. Bradshaw played the whole game while Jurgenson and Kilmer split time.