Super Bowl 0 - What if?

[conace21]

The Packers beat the Browns by 11 (23-12, wasn't it?), and that team had JIM BROWN, plus Frank Ryan, Paul Warfield and Gary Collins. I can't see the Bills scoring more than 10, and that would be a stretch. On the other hand, I think the Packers would have scored AT LEAST 23 against Buffalo, so I think they would've won by a couple of touchdowns, maybe more. I can't see it being much of a contest.

Yeah, I don't see how the Bills would score on offense. The teams were pretty similar in styles, but IMO the Packers were superior in just about every area. The Packers defensive secondary was super tough...looking at stats, the Packers nearly doubled up their opponents in passer rating (83.1 vs. 48.2) while the Bills were actually worse than their opponents (52.2 vs. 54.2). Although its probably not an entirely accurate way to forecast a game, but going through the starting rosters I see only 4 guys from the Bills who might be a starter on the 65 Packers...Billy Shaw on offense, Tom Sestak on defense, and probably Butch Byrd for Jeter and Saimes for Tom Brown (even if those aren't exactly 1-for-1 position exchanges). The point being that if the Packers are already more talented than their opponent in every phase, I don't think a Lombardi-coached team would underperform to the degree in which they would lose the game.

Bills DE Ron McDole would have started over Lionel Aldridge. He played in the NFL far longer than Aldridge. Mike Stratton would have been a candidate to start at one of the OLB.positions. And note that OLB John Tracey has started for the 1960 Cardinals, who had been the #1 defense in the NFL.

[rhickok1109]

The Packers beat the Browns by 11 (23-12, wasn't it?), and that team had JIM BROWN, plus Frank Ryan, Paul Warfield and Gary Collins. I can't see the Bills scoring more than 10, and that would be a stretch. On the other hand, I think the Packers would have scored AT LEAST 23 against Buffalo, so I think they would've won by a couple of touchdowns, maybe more. I can't see it being much of a contest.

Yeah, I don't see how the Bills would score on offense. The teams were pretty similar in styles, but IMO the Packers were superior in just about every area. The Packers defensive secondary was super tough...looking at stats, the Packers nearly doubled up their opponents in passer rating (83.1 vs. 48.2) while the Bills were actually worse than their opponents (52.2 vs. 54.2). Although its probably not an entirely accurate way to forecast a game, but going through the starting rosters I see only 4 guys from the Bills who might be a starter on the 65 Packers...Billy Shaw on offense, Tom Sestak on defense, and probably Butch Byrd for Jeter and Saimes for Tom Brown (even if those aren't exactly 1-for-1 position exchanges). The point being that if the Packers are already more talented than their opponent in every phase, I don't think a Lombardi-coached team would underperform to the degree in which they would lose the game.

Bills DE Ron McDole would have started over Lionel Aldridge.

I don't think so. Aldridge is the ONLY rookie who was ever good enough to start for Lombardi. Length of career doesn't necessarily mean much. Aldridge retired after 11 seasons because he had a chance to be a broadcast analyst and chose to do that rather than continue coping with more injuries.

[Bryan]

Bills DE Ron McDole would have started over Lionel Aldridge. He played in the NFL far longer than Aldridge. Mike Stratton would have been a candidate to start at one of the OLB.positions. And note that OLB John Tracey has started for the 1960 Cardinals, who had been the #1 defense in the NFL.

It's all opinion, but I think a prime 1965 Lionel Aldridge is much more disruptive than a prime Ron McDole. Aldridge averaged nearly a sack per game during 1965-66. McDole doesn't really have the same peak performance.

As for the LBs, the Packers LBs were the biggest and fastest group in pro football. Every guy was like 6-4, 240 with a 4.6 40 time. Their athleticism was off the charts, especially when compared to the Bills LBs. Lee Roy Caffey had a play against the Giants where he intercepted a pass and outran everyone for an 87-yard TD; none of the Bills LBs could have pulled that off, IMO. I don't see any of the Bills LBs displacing any of the Packers LBs.

[Shipley]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

[rhickok1109]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

Given Rote's penchant for throwing INTs and the Bears' ability to pick off passes, I don't think the Chargers would have had a chance to win that game.

[Brian wolf]

I believe the Chargers would have beaten the Bears in a close game if the weather was warm on a neutral site. I think the Chargers defensive line could have handled their running game. They seemed overconfident or unprepared against the Bills with Hadl at QB.

[RichardBak]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

Given Rote's penchant for throwing INTs and the Bears' ability to pick off passes, I don't think the Chargers would have had a chance to win that game.

I dunno 'bout dat.

Rote's postseason performances heading into the mythical SB vs. Bears were damn impressive. He'd played 3 games, won them all, throwing 7 TD and 1 pick in a collective 64 attempts. He also tossed in a couple short TD runs. He'd led the greatest (at the time) comeback in postseason history ('57 PO at SF) and QB'd two of the biggest title game routs (Lions 59-14 v. Browns in '57 and Chargers 51-10 over Pats six years later).

I actually believe SD would beat the Bears. Big key would be keeping Lincoln and Lowe healthy. Another key would be venue. On a dry, fast track the Chargers have the advantage.

[rhickok1109]

Bills DE Ron McDole would have started over Lionel Aldridge. He played in the NFL far longer than Aldridge. Mike Stratton would have been a candidate to start at one of the OLB.positions. And note that OLB John Tracey has started for the 1960 Cardinals, who had been the #1 defense in the NFL.

It's all opinion, but I think a prime 1965 Lionel Aldridge is much more disruptive than a prime Ron McDole. Aldridge averaged nearly a sack per game during 1965-66. McDole doesn't really have the same peak performance.

As for the LBs, the Packers LBs were the biggest and fastest group in pro football. Every guy was like 6-4, 240 with a 4.6 40 time. Their athleticism was off the charts, especially when compared to the Bills LBs. Lee Roy Caffey had a play against the Giants where he intercepted a pass and outran everyone for an 87-yard TD; none of the Bills LBs could have pulled that off, IMO. I don't see any of the Bills LBs displacing any of the Packers LBs.

I agree. No way Stratton could have beat out Dave Robinson or Caffey.

[Jay Z]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

Given Rote's penchant for throwing INTs and the Bears' ability to pick off passes, I don't think the Chargers would have had a chance to win that game.

I dunno 'bout dat.

Rote's postseason performances heading into the mythical SB vs. Bears were damn impressive. He'd played 3 games, won them all, throwing 7 TD and 1 pick in a collective 64 attempts. He also tossed in a couple short TD runs. He'd led the greatest (at the time) comeback in postseason history ('57 PO at SF) and QB'd two of the biggest title game routs (Lions 59-14 v. Browns in '57 and Chargers 51-10 over Pats six years later).

I actually believe SD would beat the Bears. Big key would be keeping Lincoln and Lowe healthy. Another key would be venue. On a dry, fast track the Chargers have the advantage.

IMO the only chance the Chargers have of winning is some racehorse game like they had against the 1963 Patriots.

Gillman had a 1-5 record as a playoff coach. In those 5 losses, his teams score fewer points than the 51 they put up against the Patriots. YA Tittle came in to the 1963 NFL Championship game, and guess what, he got hurt against a tough defense. Same way Lincoln did in 1964 AFL Championship. Bears won twice against the Packers in better field conditions as well. I do not forsee the Chargers winning some sort of close game, a shootout, because Gillman never showed he could win that type of game. The Bears win if they can punch someone in the mouth, and that's more likely than not.

[rhickok1109]

I'm surprised no one has speculated about how a mythical 1963 Super Bowl between the Bears and Chargers might have turned out. To me it's the most interesting match-up of all given the contrasts of playing styles and histories.

Given Rote's penchant for throwing INTs and the Bears' ability to pick off passes, I don't think the Chargers would have had a chance to win that game.

I dunno 'bout dat.

Rote's postseason performances heading into the mythical SB vs. Bears were damn impressive. He'd played 3 games, won them all, throwing 7 TD and 1 pick in a collective 64 attempts. He also tossed in a couple short TD runs. He'd led the greatest (at the time) comeback in postseason history ('57 PO at SF) and QB'd two of the biggest title game routs (Lions 59-14 v. Browns in '57 and Chargers 51-10 over Pats six years later).

I actually believe SD would beat the Bears. Big key would be keeping Lincoln and Lowe healthy. Another key would be venue. On a dry, fast track the Chargers have the advantage.

The Bears held the Packers to 148 yards on 41 carries in their two games. Lincoln and Lowe wouldn't have done even that well.