Were '70 Colts really a "weak" SB-winner?

[74_75_78_79_]

They were just two years removed from their 13-1 NFL Title. Two blowout losses - one at home early to KC, the other at Miami Week #10 - but they did finish 11-2-1. They made more turnovers than Dallas (7 to 4) in SBV. Just one or two turnovers and it don't come down to O'Brien in the end; a convincing enough victory perhaps. Do these guys get too much historic gruff? I know many of the players themselves aren't so proud of their SB-win but should they be? Were they at least the best in the league in 1970?

[JWL]

They were really good. They were not a mediocre champion like the 2011 Giants. So, yes, they get overlooked or downgraded or whatever maybe just because the 1970 team wasn't as great as the 1968 team and the Super Bowl itself was sloppy.

[JuggernautJ]

I think it likely that, for the vast majority of "casual football fans" the "greatest upset in football history" in Super Bowl III overshadows all the accomplishment of the Don Shula Colts.
And if that doesn't do it the loss in the 1964 NFL Championship game does.

For almost a decade "Shula's Colts" were (with a few exceptions) one of the best teams in the NFL, almost always in the top 4 in the league.
From 1964-71 (with Don MCCafferty running the show in 70 & 71) Baltimore had one of the best defenses in football to go along with the offensive talents of players like Ray Berry, Lenny Moore and, of course, Johnny Unitas. I'm pretty sure we could all name a dozen Hall of Fame or HoVG Colts players from that era.

But, just as in "real" history, the public remembers only the largest, most spectacular of events and so the 60's Colts are remembered not for their years of sustained excellence or incredible players but for their unprecedented and unexpected failures.


Another thing to take into account regarding SB V specifically is how poorly both teams played.
Winning a Title by being the survivor of the most poorly played Championship game in recent memory does not give one the historical recognition that winning by a landslide might.

Had the Colts come out and dominated the '70 Boys or even won in a hard fought, well played contest then the 1970 Championship might be seen as the validation the franchise and the players were looking for: the crowning achievement of a decade of excellence.
Instead they were the least pathetic team in a contest of ineptitude... and as such they are remembered.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... t/1970.htm

[BD Sullivan]

One possible reason is that Don McCafferty was the HC. Ask most people outside of this website who he was and you'll likely get a blank stare.