Re: Games with deceptive final scores
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2023 3:26 pm
I am going to do a thread about Smith, a talented game-manager who went through a lot of adversity. Is he HOVG? Or just HOFG(Hall Of Feel-Good)?
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://www.profootballresearchers.com/forum/
https://www.profootballresearchers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7218
George Allen's Rams never got a break on the playoff seeding. In 1967 they beat the Colts in the last game of the season to tie them for the best record. Then they had to go to freezing Milwaukee to play the 9-4-1 Packers. In 1969 they got the Vikings in freezing Minnesota. In 1973, with Chuck Knox as coach, they were 12-2 but the draw had them play at Dallas. In the 1974 NFC Championship game seeding had them at Minnesota again.Brian wolf wrote:As I have mentioned before, the 1967 Packers playoff win over the Rams could have been alot different had Gossett for LA had hit his early FG attempts. Instead, the Packers go up 14-7 at the half and take over defensively in the second half, with Williams and Dale starring on offense. Despite four turnovers, the offensive line controlled the Fearsome Foursome ... you wonder in hindsight what Unitas and the Colts might have done against GB but the Rams were fired up and eliminated them the previous weekend. I still believe the Rams should have hosted the Packers in LA.
It wasn't as close as the Steelers/Raiders. The Raiders had much more firepower on offense compared to those Oiler teams. The Raiders were simply better than the Steelers in 1973, 1976 and probably 1977...the Oilers were never actually better than the Steelers at any point in time. The Steelers absolutely womped the Oilers in the regular season in 75 and 79 with scores of 32-9 and 38-7. The dominated both games in 1976, 21-0 & 32-16. I don't see the Steelers being able to dismantle the Raiders that easily.GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: I understand how one could look at that rivalry having only watched the playoff games and think that it wasn't as close as the Steelers/Raiders.
By the same token, the Packers were just playing by the rules of the time. They were 9-2-1 and had already clinched their playoff spot prior to the game against the Rams. Even with nothing to play for, the Packers came within a blocked punt of beating the Rams in Los Angeles. Two weeks later, with something at stake, the Packers routed the Rams 28-7.SixtiesFan wrote:George Allen's Rams never got a break on the playoff seeding. In 1967 they beat the Colts in the last game of the season to tie them for the best record. Then they had to go to freezing Milwaukee to play the 9-4-1 Packers.
That the "Packers were just playing by the rules of the time" was the point. The Rams had to play on the road while Lombardi's Packers got a break on playoff seeding. I saw the week 13 Rams-Packers game on TV. The Packers were playing all out. That the Rams won by a blocked punt was not a surprise. George Allen emphasized special teams.Bryan wrote:By the same token, the Packers were just playing by the rules of the time. They were 9-2-1 and had already clinched their playoff spot prior to the game against the Rams. Even with nothing to play for, the Packers came within a blocked punt of beating the Rams in Los Angeles. Two weeks later, with something at stake, the Packers routed the Rams 28-7.SixtiesFan wrote:George Allen's Rams never got a break on the playoff seeding. In 1967 they beat the Colts in the last game of the season to tie them for the best record. Then they had to go to freezing Milwaukee to play the 9-4-1 Packers.
I think if home field had been determined by record back in 1967, the Packers actually try to win their final two games. I'm guessing Don Horn wouldn't have played the majority of the Steelers game, and I'm guessing the Packers would have beaten the Rams in Los Angeles. So then the Packers finish 11-2-1 or at worst 10-3-1 if they don't try against the Steelers...but the irony is that had the Rams lost to a Packers team with something to play for, then the Rams would have been 9-2-2 going into the last week against 11-0-2 Baltimore with no shot at making the postseason. So people can complain about the 1967 Rams having to go to Milwaukee for their playoff game, but the playoff system at the time also helped the Rams make the postseason in the first place.
Mark wrote:How about the two Lions-Redskins games from 1991?
The first was 45-0 which sounds bad enough but I think it could have easily been 70-0. The Lions seemed to be outclassed at every level.
The Redskins did nothing but run the ball most of the 4th quarter and took a knee at the Lions 12 toward the end of the game.If he wanted to run up the score he could have done much more. I recall an Eagles-Redskins game when Spurrier was coach and the Eagles were up 37-7 and Andy Reid had them took a knee. Spurrier said they should have kicked a FG. While I am not for intentionally humiliating anyone I wouldn't completely stop playing especially since point differential can come into play. I recall there being a fuss in 1996 when the Cowboys kicked an unneeded FG against the Packers that made it 21-6 instead of 18-6. I hate the Cowboys but that wouldn't bother me. Is losing 21-6 really worse than 18-6? In the 1991 Redskin Falcon game the last score was an interception return. I guess the interceptor was supposed to take a knee?CSKreager wrote:Mark wrote:How about the two Lions-Redskins games from 1991?
The first was 45-0 which sounds bad enough but I think it could have easily been 70-0. The Lions seemed to be outclassed at every level.
Gibbs ran up the score just as he did against Atlanta in November.
If I were Wayne Fontes, I wouldn’t have shaken his hand after that game.