Today in History: SUPER BOWL I Jan 15, 1967 [Article a landslide of info]

Answers.com ^

[Alberta's Child]

The 46 Defense wasn't exactly a radical scheme in 1985. It was originally used by the Bears -- apparently without much success -- back in the late 1970s (the 46 was named after the number worn by defensive back Doug Plank).

The Bears switched to a traditional 4-3 defense immediately after their Super Bowl win in 1985-86, primarily because Buddy Ryan left the team to become the head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles. Defensively, the Eagles were never as dominant as the Bears had been -- mainly because they simply didn't have the same level of talent as Chicago.

Despite their perfect record, I wouldn't even include the 1972 Dolphins among the top ten teams of all time. They played a very weak schedule that year, and were so unimpressive in running the table that they were actually the underdog in the Super Bowl against Washington.

[LS]

That's what I was getting at. Pitt has been great for 30 years, but sucked in the 60s. Miami had one good decade, with a couple of decent Marino teams. The 49ers had a couple of teams in the early 70s, and then the Montana teams. But Dallas is a model of consistency. I do think they are three good players away from making a run next year (FS, pass rusher to compliment Ware, and O-lineman).

[LS]

Well, I give the Dolphins a little more credit. They had the most punishing running game, overall, in NFL history with Csonka, Kiick, and Morris. But their defense was overrated.

I well remember the Skins. If they had had a real QB, they would have been nearly unstoppable, but Billy Kilmer was slightly better than my uncle (and he's dead).

[Fiji Hill]

The term "Super Bowl" might not have been the official name of the 1967 game, but everyone called it that--and one radio personality referred to its absence from LA-area TV screens as the "Super Black-Out."

[SamAdams76]

Pretty amazing that for a game that attracted 80% of the TV audience nationwide, they couldn't even sell out the game at the stadium. But the $12 tickets was probably why. That was BIG money back then. I was only a kid at the time but my father was making about $85 a week and I thought he was one of the richest men in the world when he would come home from work on Fridays and flash those bills around. My mother found $50 in his wallet once and she freaked out that he would walk around with that much money on him.

Anyway, I watched the game that day and vaguely recall the marching bands at halftime (that Al Hirt must have put on quite a show) but I have no recollection of all about Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr. Too bad the networks trashed the tapes. What were they thinking!

[Dog]

I remember watching this game at my aunt and uncles house....they had just got a new color tv. I vaguely remember Al Hirt that day..

[WI Conservative 4 Bush]

LS said, "Sorry, that was prehistoric times..."

I'm sorry, LS, I don't mean to pick a fight, but you contradict yourself here. Previously you state, "You define greatness by the test of time."

You should amend your statement that you define greatness by the test of certain periods of time as deemed relavent by LS. 12 league championships makes the Packers the best football team ever until someone else surpasses that total.

Also, the 5 championships in 7 years makes the '60s Packers the single best football dynasty ever. I suppose the '60s are pre-historic too.

Be well, my friend. I much prefer quibbling over football than other topics!!

[LS]

Lol. Yes, certain periods of time. For example, no question Wilt Chamberlain was the absolute most dominant player of the 1950s and early 1960s. But of all time? Hmmm. I'd say Michael Jordan because of the quality of competition. Likewise, those old teams (like the Bud Wilkinson Sooners) could get on a run because of the incredible unevenness of the competition.

That's why I'd argue that today's New England Patriots are rapidly becoming the best team ever. Not only have they whipped everyone three times in, what? five years? But they have done so in the age of "parity." Anyway, comparing these eras at least gave Sylvester Stallone the basis for another "Rocky" movie!