Super Bowl XIV Steelers 31 vs Rams 19
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#1
04-04-2017, 12:19 PM

Super Bowl XIV Steelers 31 vs Rams 19 - w/Summerall & Brookshire 
Super Bowl XIV Steelers 31 vs Rams 19 - w/Flemming & Cope

Note: There are two different versions of this game, both have outstanding video quality. 

The first is the complete NBC broadcast with Pat Summerall and Tom Brookshire calling the game. 

The second is the complete NBC broadcast of the game with the radio call from Jack Flemming and Myron Cope dubbed in (graciously provided by tm101956). 

MVP Terry Bradshaw combines with Swann and Stallworth to bring the Steelers back to win in a close, competitive game versus a tenacious Rams team! Los Angeles didn't figure to put a dent in the Steel Curtain, but as a wise man once said... that's why they play the games. After sleepwalking through a somewhat lackluster first half (and consequently trailing 13-10), the Steelers open the 2nd half with a picture perfect 47-yard Bradshaw bomb to Swann, who makes a breathtaking leaping grab over double-coverage for the TD. Pittsburgh's lead is short-lived, however, as the Rams score quickly on a stunning halfback option pass to sieze the momentum right back. A game-ending injury to Swann and two Bradshaw INT's send the Steelers into the 4th quarter trailing 19-17. But Bradshaw, as always, is resilient. On 3rd and 8 from the Steelers 27, Bradshaw lets loose a rocket to Stallworth deep down the middle for a 73-yard TD. Terry's pass proves to be the winning score in a game which saw the lead change hands six times. The Rams threaten to once again take the lead late in the 4th when Jack Lambert steps in front of a Ferragamo pass for an interception to ensure a Pittsburgh victory. Terry follows up with a 50-yard bomb to Stallworth to set up an insurance TD and bring Art Rooney a fourth Lombardi Trophy. Some pre-game and lots of post-game interviews with Noll, Bradshaw, Swann, Stallworth and more. 
Reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
#2
05-19-2017, 09:06 PM

Interesting decision by Chuck to have an onside kick following the FG in the first quarter. He was gambling with the idea that the Steelers could blow the game open early. Unfortunately, it backfired. The Rams went on and scored a TD to take the lead and make a game of it. But that's what I love about this game. It was the first SB I watched, and it was full of back-and-forth excitement, lead changes and drama. Have been a Steeler fan ever since.
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#3
05-20-2017, 12:48 AM

(05-19-2017, 09:06 PM)Guest Wrote: Interesting decision by Chuck to have an onside kick following the FG in the first quarter. He was gambling with the idea that the Steelers could blow the game open early. Unfortunately, it backfired. The Rams went on and scored a TD to take the lead and make a game of it. But that's what I love about this game. It was the first SB I watched, and it was full of back-and-forth excitement, lead changes and drama. Have been a Steeler fan ever since.

Yeah, I thought the onside kick was a great call. Didn't work, but I like the call. I do think that if we had gotten up on them by a couple of scores early, they might've folded. But we let 'em hang around and it made for a really exciting game. Six lead changes, I think? 

Terry had Swann WIDE open for a TD on that first drive, too. He just missed him... threw it too far inside and a little high. But Swann had faked the defender out of his jock and was SO wide open. 

Jack Ham was sorely missed in this game as well. It's a testament to the Steelers' depth that that the defense played as well as it did in the '79 postseason without Ham in the lineup. That said, I do think it had an impact, particularly in the Super Bowl. 

Of all the Super Bowls, this one stressed me out the most. I was 11 years old at the time and really expected the Steelers to blow the Rams out. Was on the edge of my seat with my stomach in knots the whole time.  Laugh
Reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
#4
06-15-2017, 11:21 PM

Joe Greene said this game was the Steeler's golden invitation to ... golden invitation to what? Immortality? Precisely. That is what Sports Illustrated declared in their classic write-up of this, Super Bowl XIV, the lynch-pin in the Steelers' dynasty. Read the story here. https://www.si.com/vault/issue/70869/13/1
Reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
#5
06-16-2017, 12:09 AM

"There are not many ways a human being can throw a football better than Bradshaw did to Stallworth on that third-and-eight play. Stallworth got inside Rod Perry, the cornerback, and behind Elmendorf, the strong safety, and took it 73 yards for a 24-19 Pittsburgh lead." Sports Illustrated, Jan. 28, 1980
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#6
06-16-2017, 08:57 PM

(06-16-2017, 12:09 AM)Guest Wrote: "There are not many ways a human being can throw a football better than Bradshaw did to Stallworth on that third-and-eight play. Stallworth got inside Rod Perry, the cornerback, and behind Elmendorf, the strong safety, and took it 73 yards for a 24-19 Pittsburgh lead." Sports Illustrated, Jan. 28, 1980

No doubt about it... that was about as pretty of a deep ball as you'll ever see. Perfect spiral without a hint of wobble, perfect arc and dead on the money.
Reply
thespiritof1976
Starting Lineup
***

Posts: 60
Joined: Jun 2017
#7
06-27-2017, 06:16 AM

Dumb what if here.

What if the Bucs had been able to muster up 10 points and beat the Rams ?

Well, for one, Doug Williams would not have been able to play so it would have been former Raider Mike Rae starting for the Bucs.

My prediction if the Bucs-Steelers played for the SB that year ?

A slow, low scoring game. Something like 17-6 Steelers. Noll probably would have wanted to run it a lot and not take any chances since the Bucs offense would have been largely non-existent.

John McKay would have run Ricky Bell 50 times (at least). Bucs probably would have run some trick plays and maybe even a little bit of wing T.
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#8
06-28-2017, 02:48 PM

(06-27-2017, 06:16 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: Dumb what if here.

What if the Bucs had been able to muster up 10 points and beat the Rams ?

Well, for one, Doug Williams would not have been able to play so it would have been former Raider Mike Rae starting for the Bucs.

My prediction if the Bucs-Steelers played for the SB that year ?

A slow, low scoring game. Something like 17-6 Steelers. Noll probably would have wanted to run it a lot and not take any chances since the Bucs offense would have been largely non-existent.

John McKay would have run Ricky Bell 50 times (at least). Bucs probably would have run some trick plays and maybe even a little bit of wing T.


I dunno. The Rams were one of the few teams that kinda had Pittsburgh's number in the '70s... and we still put up 31 on 'em. The Steelers were scoring machines in the '78 and '79 post-seasons. I kinda think they might've put up a 50-burger on the Bucs without Williams. 

I was happy the Bucs did as well as they did and I think the whole country kinda rooted for them a little in '79 just because they had come SO far from 0-26. But the Rams were due. They had been a bridesmaid and never a bride so many times to Dallas and Minnesota in the NFC Championship. It was finally their turn.
Reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
#9
06-28-2017, 08:59 PM

Just to add to Tim's comment about the Steelers being a scoring machine during that time, they put up 31 points against Bud Carson (ex-Steelers defensive coordinator '72-'77) whom knew the team pretty well.

Sal
Reply
thespiritof1976
Starting Lineup
***

Posts: 60
Joined: Jun 2017
#10
06-29-2017, 01:52 AM

(06-28-2017, 02:48 PM)mcmillenandwife Wrote:
(06-27-2017, 06:16 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: Dumb what if here.

What if the Bucs had been able to muster up 10 points and beat the Rams ?

Well, for one, Doug Williams would not have been able to play so it would have been former Raider Mike Rae starting for the Bucs.

My prediction if the Bucs-Steelers played for the SB that year ?

A slow, low scoring game. Something like 17-6 Steelers. Noll probably would have wanted to run it a lot and not take any chances since the Bucs offense would have been largely non-existent.

John McKay would have run Ricky Bell 50 times (at least). Bucs probably would have run some trick plays and maybe even a little bit of wing T.


I dunno. The Rams were one of the few teams that kinda had Pittsburgh's number in the '70s... and we still put up 31 on 'em. The Steelers were scoring machines in the '78 and '79 post-seasons. I kinda think they might've put up a 50-burger on the Bucs without Williams. 

I was happy the Bucs did as well as they did and I think the whole country kinda rooted for them a little in '79 just because they had come SO far from 0-26. But the Rams were due. They had been a bridesmaid and never a bride so many times to Dallas and Minnesota in the NFC Championship. It was finally their turn.

Yes, you very well might be right.

However, I will say with some certainty that if Doug Williams had stayed in Tampa the history of the NFC throughout the rest of the 80's would have been different.

If Williams stayed the Bucs wouldn't have gone 2-14 every year. Sure, they probably weren't good enough to go to the Super Bowl but they would have been a Wild Card contender every year.

Hugh Green, their All-Pro linebacker, wouldn't have demanded a trade, James Wilder wouldn't have been run into the ground, Jimmie Giles and Kevin House wouldn't have had their talents wasted, the Bo Jackson debacle would never have happened (b/c the Bucs wouldn't have received the first pick of the 1986 draft since they wouldn't have been 2-14 in 1985), Leeman Bennett would still be selling RV's and that idiot Ray Perkins would have stayed at Alabama.

Till this day I hate Hugh Culverhouse for what he did.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2017, 01:54 AM by thespiritof1976.)
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#11
06-29-2017, 02:41 AM

(06-29-2017, 01:52 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: However, I will say with some certainty that if Doug Williams had stayed in Tampa the history of the NFC throughout the rest of the 80's would have been different.

If Williams stayed the Bucs wouldn't have gone 2-14 every year. Sure, they probably weren't good enough to go to the Super Bowl but they would have been a Wild Card contender every year.


I agree 100%. Tampa Bay had a pretty solid core and an excellent defense. Ownership should've worked it out with Williams instead of low-balling him. The whole situation was awful, so who could blame him for leaving? 

In the end, Williams got the last laugh. But what a horrible domino effect it had on the Bucs.
Reply
Crash
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 869
Joined: May 2017
#12
06-29-2017, 02:37 PM

Culverhouse was an idiot. He ruined the Bucs for YEARS on numerous occasions.

I think if the Steelers played the Bucs though they beat them soundly, especially without Williams.

The Rams always played the Steelers tough. They beat them the year before in 1978. They were also a battle-tested playoff team.

The Bucs inexperience may have hurt them on the NFL's biggest stage playing with their backup QB.
Reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
#13
06-29-2017, 09:03 PM

Also it is worth noting that Pittsburgh traveled to Tampa Bay the following year, and even though the Steelers were aging and banged up (missing Franco, Stallworth and a number of other starters) managed to win 24-21. So I imagine that Steelers would have had an easier time with the Bucs, maybe winning it 31-7.
Reply
Bobcat29
Special Teamer
**

Posts: 24
Joined: Jul 2017
#14
08-13-2017, 12:32 AM

Boy was I scared. This was a more competitive Super Bowl then 13. Rams were underrated due to their record of 9-7. What people forget is, the Rams were injured earlier in the season and struggled. They got healthy and back to form. Franco had a great game when you consider how important he was for the passing game 3 rec for 66 yds and they were big play's. Thankful that Dave Elmendorf dropped a sure interception. A little luck helps.
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#15
08-13-2017, 02:11 AM

(08-13-2017, 12:32 AM)Bobcat29 Wrote: Thankful that Dave Elmendorf  dropped a sure interception. A little luck helps.

Oh, man. One of the biggest plays of the game, and largely overlooked. My heart goes to my throat just thinking about it. Had he held onto that ball, I think the Rams win, because he was taking it to the house and it would've put L.A. up 26-17. 


(08-13-2017, 12:32 AM)Bobcat29 Wrote: Franco had a great game when you consider how important he was for the passing game 3 rec for 66 yds and they were big play's. 

Agreed, Franco was huge in the passing game. He doesn't get enough credit for his receiving because he really wasn't utilized in the passing game until late in his career, but Franco had really good hands. 


(08-13-2017, 12:32 AM)Bobcat29 Wrote: Boy was I scared. This was a more competitive Super Bowl then 13. Rams were underrated due to their record of 9-7. What people forget is, the Rams were injured earlier in the season and struggled. They got healthy and back to form. 

People also forget that Bud Carson (one of the architects of the Steel Curtain) was their defensive coordinator. He knew Pittsburgh intimately on both sides of the ball. It's pretty amazing, you go back and read accounts from the game, the Rams actually knew a lot of our audibles and calls. It blows my mind that we didn't change things up (things like "brown" being a hot color for a audible play call, for example), but supposedly, we didn't. 

In any case, I agree... this was definitely the "scariest" of the 4 '70s Super Bowls.
Reply
Garrett Garlits
All Pro Veteran
****

Posts: 511
Joined: May 2017
#16
08-14-2017, 03:20 AM

Pregame, we see all the ceremonies and pageantry, including the individual introduction of the defenses (which we'll probably never see again, since the Patriots like to come out as a team and everyone just HAS to copy them) and Art Rooney riding out to midfield to present the coin for the coin toss. Cheryl Ladd sings the National Anthem.

Postgame, there are plenty of Steeler interviews, plus the trophy presentation and a brief interview with Rams QB Vince Ferragamo. We close with a commentary from Jack Whittaker.
Reply
Jerseyfla
Rookie
*

Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 2018
#17
06-14-2018, 12:38 AM

Here is a newscast from Channel 11 from the night before the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c19RgvuyEiw&t=24s

And the commercials from during the game from KDKA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWI0b9fvyuM

KDKA had the newscast from after 60 Minutes which followed the game on their website 9 years ago but they have since deleted it. :(
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#18
06-14-2018, 11:31 AM

Thanks for the great links, Jersey!  Thumbsup Thumbsup
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#19
12-26-2018, 07:39 PM

Now with two versions! Original broadcast with Summerall and Brookshire, and version with Flemming and Cope dubbed in.
Reply
Crash
Hall of Famer
*****

Posts: 869
Joined: May 2017
#20
12-27-2018, 06:39 PM

Cheryl Tiegs at 33 minutes selling camera's. Meeeeeeow!
Reply
Garrett Garlits
All Pro Veteran
****

Posts: 511
Joined: May 2017
#21
01-15-2019, 01:40 AM

The Fleming and Cope version ends with forty-five seconds left. No scoring is missed, of course.
Reply
Luther
Special Teamer
**

Posts: 20
Joined: Jun 2017
#22
01-25-2019, 10:58 AM

Thank you for the Steelers broadcasting team! Jack Fleming and yes Myron Cope. You betcha!!!
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#23
01-27-2019, 01:18 AM

(01-25-2019, 10:58 AM)Luther Wrote: Thank you for the Steelers broadcasting team! Jack Fleming and yes Myron Cope. You betcha!!!

Fleming and Cope put a whole new twist on these games, don't they? Their commentary has brought new life to games I've watched countless times.
Reply
NFL2000
Special Teamer
**

Posts: 9
Joined: May 2018
#24
12-23-2019, 01:30 AM

In my opinion, the most exciting of the 4 Super Bowls played by the Steelers in the 70s.
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#25
12-23-2019, 11:05 PM

(12-23-2019, 01:30 AM)NFL2000 Wrote: In my opinion, the most exciting of the 4 Super Bowls played by the Steelers in the 70s.

Yes, it was nerve-racking. To fans without a horse in the race, you're probably right; it was exciting. But to me, as a Steelers fan, it was flippin' stressful. I felt relief when the Steelers won, but I didn't really experience any of the "joy" I had after SB XIII or even SB X. 

It was "Whew!" instead of "Woo!" 

Honestly, watching it still makes me feel a little uneasy. The 3rd quarter was torture. When Swann scored on the bomb, I figured, "We've got 'em!" Then they struck right back, Swann went down and Terry seemed a little lost without him, throwing a pair of picks -- the second of which ended a promising drive -- and Elmendorf almost had a 3rd INT for a pick 6. 

The 4th quarter feels more like Steeler football. We kinda won that way all year in '79... LATE.  Thumbsup
Reply
Jbsptfn
Special Teamer
**

Posts: 37
Joined: Sep 2019
#26
12-25-2019, 03:50 PM

(06-28-2017, 02:48 PM)mcmillenandwife Wrote:
(06-27-2017, 06:16 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: Dumb what if here.

What if the Bucs had been able to muster up 10 points and beat the Rams ?

Well, for one, Doug Williams would not have been able to play so it would have been former Raider Mike Rae starting for the Bucs.

My prediction if the Bucs-Steelers played for the SB that year ?

A slow, low scoring game. Something like 17-6 Steelers. Noll probably would have wanted to run it a lot and not take any chances since the Bucs offense would have been largely non-existent.

John McKay would have run Ricky Bell 50 times (at least). Bucs probably would have run some trick plays and maybe even a little bit of wing T.


I dunno. The Rams were one of the few teams that kinda had Pittsburgh's number in the '70s... and we still put up 31 on 'em. The Steelers were scoring machines in the '78 and '79 post-seasons. I kinda think they might've put up a 50-burger on the Bucs without Williams. 

I was happy the Bucs did as well as they did and I think the whole country kinda rooted for them a little in '79 just because they had come SO far from 0-26. But the Rams were due. They had been a bridesmaid and never a bride so many times to Dallas and Minnesota in the NFC Championship. It was finally their turn.

You are right. It was their turn. However, if they did lose at Tampa, I wonder if the 1980 Rams are even more motivated. They had a better team than the 1979 version. If they are more driven, do we see them in NO against the Raiders the next year instead of Philly? That would have been a better game.
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#27
12-27-2019, 05:34 AM

(12-25-2019, 03:50 PM)Jbsptfn Wrote:
(06-28-2017, 02:48 PM)mcmillenandwife Wrote:
(06-27-2017, 06:16 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: Dumb what if here.

What if the Bucs had been able to muster up 10 points and beat the Rams ?

Well, for one, Doug Williams would not have been able to play so it would have been former Raider Mike Rae starting for the Bucs.

My prediction if the Bucs-Steelers played for the SB that year ?

A slow, low scoring game. Something like 17-6 Steelers. Noll probably would have wanted to run it a lot and not take any chances since the Bucs offense would have been largely non-existent.

John McKay would have run Ricky Bell 50 times (at least). Bucs probably would have run some trick plays and maybe even a little bit of wing T.


I dunno. The Rams were one of the few teams that kinda had Pittsburgh's number in the '70s... and we still put up 31 on 'em. The Steelers were scoring machines in the '78 and '79 post-seasons. I kinda think they might've put up a 50-burger on the Bucs without Williams. 

I was happy the Bucs did as well as they did and I think the whole country kinda rooted for them a little in '79 just because they had come SO far from 0-26. But the Rams were due. They had been a bridesmaid and never a bride so many times to Dallas and Minnesota in the NFC Championship. It was finally their turn.

You are right. It was their turn. However, if they did lose at Tampa, I wonder if the 1980 Rams are even more motivated. They had a better team than the 1979 version. If they are more driven, do we see them in NO against the Raiders the next year instead of Philly? That would have been a better game.


Well, I tend to agree the Rams were better in '80 than in '79. In particular, Ferragamo had a pretty good year. But I felt like Philly was probably the best team in the league all year long, with Dallas being #2. The Falcons had a really good year, too, but they were a fluke IMO. Oakland wasn't even the best team in the AFC; I thought both San Diego and Cleveland were better. I was shocked when Oakland made it to the Super Bowl, and even more shocked when they beat Philly as soundly as they did. Jaworski had a horrific day (3 INTs and a fumble) and dug too deep a hole, and Philly's defense -- which is why I thought they had the edge going in -- gave up the kind of big plays they hadn't allowed all year. 

I think Philly beats Oakland 4 out of 5 times in 1980. They had a better team. But that day... Oakland was definitely better. They got hot in the playoffs and I think kinda snuck up on everyone they played in the post-season. 

Fun to talk about, although 1980 was a nightmare season for me with the Steelers dynasty finally coming to an end.
Reply
Jbsptfn
Special Teamer
**

Posts: 37
Joined: Sep 2019
#28
12-28-2019, 02:29 AM

Quote:But I felt like Philly was probably the best team in the league all year long, with Dallas being #2. The Falcons had a really good year, too, but they were a fluke IMO. Oakland wasn't even the best team in the AFC; I thought both San Diego and Cleveland were better. I was shocked when Oakland made it to the Super Bowl, and even more shocked when they beat Philly as soundly as they did. Jaworski had a horrific day (3 INTs and a fumble) and dug too deep a hole, and Philly's defense -- which is why I thought they had the edge going in -- gave up the kind of big plays they hadn't allowed all year. 

I think Philly beats Oakland 4 out of 5 times in 1980. They had a better team. But that day... Oakland was definitely better. They got hot in the playoffs and I think kinda snuck up on everyone they played in the post-season. 

Fun to talk about, although 1980 was a nightmare season for me with the Steelers dynasty finally coming to an end.

I guess that I don't have that good of an impression of those Eagle teams after the officials gave them the 1979 WC Game over the Bears (the Bears were screwed out of a victory, plain and simple). Atlanta did prove to be somewhat of a fluke, but I just don't see the Eagles as being that great. Neither were the Raiders, though. They got lucky against the Browns and Chargers in the playoffs, and they went up against an Eagle team that was so scared, they looked like they were going off to Vietnam (I think Matuszak said that).

There just wasn't a super team that year after the Steelers had a rash of injuries. A healthy Steeler team may have gotten one for the thumb that year. However, I don't think that was the end of the dynasty. They should have won in 82 (if they get out of that SD game alive, they would have). That would have been five SB titles in nine years.

The real end was two-fold: When they didn't take Marino, and when he beat them in the 1984 AFC Title Game. That was the officlal end to the Steeler dynasty. They passed on the guy that may have kept them at the top, and he came back and beat them the first four times he played against them (the Steelers didn't beat Marino until 1988).

It's kind of like when the Cowboys passed on Moss in 1998. Their dynasty was starting to die, but they still had some good players. Moss was the guy that may have been able to keep it going, and they passed on him. Three years later, Irvin and Aikman were out of football, and Emmitt was on the decline (and would be in the desert a few years later to finish his career. I am a Cowboy hater, but I have to admit that Emmitt in red wasn't right).
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2019, 02:35 AM by Jbsptfn.)
Reply
mcmillenandwife
Administrator
*******

Posts: 18,042
Joined: Jan 1970
#29
12-29-2019, 06:45 AM

(12-28-2019, 02:29 AM)Jbsptfn Wrote: I guess that I don't have that good of an impression of those Eagle teams after the officials gave them the 1979 WC Game over the Bears (the Bears were screwed out of a victory, plain and simple). Atlanta did prove to be somewhat of a fluke, but I just don't see the Eagles as being that great. Neither were the Raiders, though. They got lucky against the Browns and Chargers in the playoffs, and they went up against an Eagle team that was so scared, they looked like they were going off to Vietnam (I think Matuszak said that).

There just wasn't a super team that year after the Steelers had a rash of injuries. A healthy Steeler team may have gotten one for the thumb that year. However, I don't think that was the end of the dynasty. They should have won in 82 (if they get out of that SD game alive, they would have). That would have been five SB titles in nine years.

I agree with you, the Eagles of the era weren't "that" great. I do, however, still think they were the best overall team in 1980, even though they ultimately fell short. There was a definite power vacuum in 1980 with the Steelers succumbing to age and injuries, the Cowboys swapping Staubach for Danny White. The Raiders filling that void -- behind Plunkett, of all people -- was a surprise to me. 

I also agree that '82 was a real missed opportunity for the Steelers. They could've done it. It was another year with no real juggernauts, and Miami definitely didn't deserve to be there.  David Woodley and Strock, seriously?  Laugh The Redskins were formidable, but they had they faced a team like Pittsburgh with an actual offense... they lose. They barely beat Miami with their stellar 4 of 17 for 97 yds passing performance (76 yds of which came on 1 play). What a joke.


(12-28-2019, 02:29 AM)Jbsptfn Wrote: The real end was two-fold: When they didn't take Marino, and when he beat them in the 1984 AFC Title Game. That was the officlal end to the Steeler dynasty. They passed on the guy that may have kept them at the top, and he came back and beat them the first four times he played against them (the Steelers didn't beat Marino until 1988).

I can roll with that, I guess... but by '84, the team of the '70s had been gutted. Who was left... Stallworth, Webster and Shell? Lambert was still there, but he missed half the season and was on his way out. 

Bradshaw, gone. Harris, gone. Swann, gone. Mean Joe, gone. Greenwood, gone. Rocky, gone. Blount, gone. Wagner, gone. Sam Davis, Jon Kolb, Dwight White, Steve Furness, Ernie Holmes, Andy Russell, Randy Grossman, John Banaszak, Dirt Winston, JT Thomas, Sidney Thornton, all gone. 

IMO, '84 was a radically different team from the true dynasty years, top to bottom. 


(12-28-2019, 02:29 AM)Jbsptfn Wrote: It's kind of like when the Cowboys passed on Moss in 1998. Their dynasty was starting to die, but they still had some good players. Moss was the guy that may have been able to keep it going, and they passed on him. Three years later, Irvin and Aikman were out of football, and Emmitt was on the decline (and would be in the desert a few years later to finish his career. I am a Cowboy hater, but I have to admit that Emmitt in red wasn't right).


Yeah, I understand your point. I think Marino could've won Super Bowls in Pittsburgh... although honestly, I still think he should've been able to do it with Miami. He played on some pretty decent teams and Shula allowed everything to be built around Marino. It's kinda shocking that he only got there once. 

That said, I tend to think Noll would've kept the focus on running and ball control had Pittsburgh drafted him, despite Marino's passing ability, and it would've served him better. Elway didn't get a Lombardi until he had a great running game to help him. I think it would've been the same with Marino; Noll would've maintained an element of power football, giving Marino the help he needed to get over the hump.

But... all speculation. It's a shame we can't get a do-over.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)