Poll: Biggest Upset in Super Bowl History (1 Viewer)

[Black Box]

Since there is a strong debate about this year's Pats being the GTOAT it only stands to reason if the Giants can beat them that it would be the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

No, your conclusion does not follow. The biggest upset is the result of the largest delta between the two teams, not based on how great the favorite team is. And given that the Giants almost beat the Patriots 4 weeks ago, it does not stand to reason that the delta between the two teams can be the largest in the history of the Super Bowl.

The Giants are a #5 seed who didn't even win their division. The Pats have been head and shoulders above the league the entire year. They haven't lost. There is talk of the GTOAT in the air. I'm sorry, but this delta is huge. If you are a Pats fan, and you truly believe this team should be considered the GTOAT, then put your money where your mouth is, step up and say this will be a huge upset if the Giants win. If you hedge your bets hemming and hawing about how the Giants are so close to the Pats in talent, well, then the Pats are certainly not the GTOAT because the Giants are nowhere near the GTOAT.I have no doubt that the Patriots will win this game. I'll be shocked if they do not. Not a Pats or Giants fan.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Jets-Colts sb was probably the biggest upset and surprise. this Colts team was considered one of the all time great teams going into that Super Bowl and the AFL was still considered to be almost like a minor league at the time. I've been watching football since the early 70's and I can only remember a couple of sb's that i really considered upsets at the time. Giants over a high powered buffalo bills team and the Pats over the rams. I would pick Pats over the Rams as the biggest upset since I have been watching football.

I agree, and that would be my vote, too...were it not for this Super Bowl matchup.

I would love for you to explain how the Giants beating the Patriots would be a bigger upset than the Patriots/Rams game. Here is the way I see it: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, was picking the Patriots to beat the Rams, and very few were actually expecting it to be a close game at all. Meanwhile, I have seen some pick the Giants to win this game, and many are predicting a fairly close game. Plus, the Giants are on fire coming into this game, while the Patriots are struggling (in the sense of winning close games, as opposed to how dominant they were earlier in the season). Meanwhile, back then, most thought the Pats were lucky to make the SB after beating the Raiders in the Tuck Game and then beating Pitt by getting some fluky special team scores. And, yes, I understand that NYG over NE would mean a wild card team upsetting an 18-0 team, which on paper looks like more of a bigger upset than the Pats beating the Rams back in '01, but when looking at it more closely, I do not think it is close.

I did explain my case (whether you agree or not) in the blog post linked...Giants are one of the least dominating teams in SB history; they beat their opponents by a whopping 1.4 PPG this year. Meanwhile the Patriots were THE most dominant team in league history. Not only did they go 16-0, but they won their games by an AVERAGE of almost 20 PPG. It's rare, although not unprecedented, for a team with a smaller margin of victory to win the Super Bowl; but this would be more than 2x the prior record in that regard. For those who point out that the Pats weren't as dominant in the 2nd half...true enough, yet their margin of victory over the 2nd half (13.9 PPG) is still historically dominant.I keep hearing people point out that the Pats "weren't the same team" in the 2nd half of the season...yet no one points out the same for the Giants *** Patriots (1st 8 Games) -- 331 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (25.5 PPG margin)*** Patriots (2nd 8 Games) -- 234 Points Scored, 127 Points Allowed (13.4 PPG margin)*** Giants (1st 8 Games) -- 200 Points Scored, 159 Points Allowed (5.2 PPG margin)*** Giants (2nd 8 Games) -- 173 Points Scored, 192 Points Allowed (NEGATIVE 2.4 PPG margin)Again, sure...the Patriots went from "otherworldly dominant like no other team in league history" in the 1st half to just "dominant", but the Giants went from "pretty good" to actually getting OUTSCORED by their opponents over the last 8 games. Let's also not forget the Giants went 4-4 in the 2nd half.

I am aware of all of this, but you are ignoring how both teams have looked in the playoffs. See my post again about how the Rams and Pats looked heading into the Super Bowl in '01 in comparison to how well both the Giants and Patriots are playing RIGHT NOW. Obviously, over the course of an entire season, the Patriots are a better team than the Giants, but what matters is how well both teams are playing right now. The Patriots are not playing that much better than the Giants RIGHT NOW, as opposed to back in '01 when the Rams were playing much better ball heading into the Super Bowl than the Patriots were.

 

[Bill Lust]

The Patriots are not playing that much better than the Giants RIGHT NOW, as opposed to back in '01 when the Rams were playing much better ball heading into the Super Bowl than the Patriots were.

I don't think that this is true. The Patriots had an eight game winning streak going into the Super Bowl that year. I do consider that SB to be a greater upset than this one would be, but you don't seem to be giving the Pats too much credit for how well they were playing at the time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Patriots are not playing that much better than the Giants RIGHT NOW, as opposed to back in '01 when the Rams were playing much better ball heading into the Super Bowl than the Patriots were.

I don't think that this is true. The Patriots had an eight game winning streak going into the Super Bowl that year. I do consider that SB to be a greater upset than this one would be, but you don't seem to be giving the Pats too much credit for how well they were playing at the time.

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "the Patriots had an eight game winning streak." They had struggled mightily in the playoffs. They looked terrible for most of the Raiders game, but we all know about the great comeback in the snow. And they got outplayed by the Steelers in the AFC title game, but won because of a punt return (that came after Pittsburgh got a penalty and had to re-kick) and a blocked FG that was returned for a touchdown. Aside from those plays, the Patriots did not look very good. In those playoffs, the Patriots mastered the art of winning ugly, which they also pretty much did in the Super Bowl, and against a Rams team that was clicking on all cylinders heading into the big game.

 

[Bill Lust]

The Patriots are not playing that much better than the Giants RIGHT NOW, as opposed to back in '01 when the Rams were playing much better ball heading into the Super Bowl than the Patriots were.

I don't think that this is true. The Patriots had an eight game winning streak going into the Super Bowl that year. I do consider that SB to be a greater upset than this one would be, but you don't seem to be giving the Pats too much credit for how well they were playing at the time.

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "the Patriots had an eight game winning streak." They had struggled mightily in the playoffs. They looked terrible for most of the Raiders game, but we all know about the great comeback in the snow. And they got outplayed by the Steelers in the AFC title game, but won because of a punt return (that came after Pittsburgh got a penalty and had to re-kick) and a blocked FG that was returned for a touchdown. Aside from those plays, the Patriots did not look very good. In those playoffs, the Patriots mastered the art of winning ugly, which they also pretty much did in the Super Bowl, and against a Rams team that was clicking on all cylinders heading into the big game.

The Giants haven't been winning ugly? They had 230 yards of offense in the Dallas game.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The Patriots are not playing that much better than the Giants RIGHT NOW, as opposed to back in '01 when the Rams were playing much better ball heading into the Super Bowl than the Patriots were.

I don't think that this is true. The Patriots had an eight game winning streak going into the Super Bowl that year. I do consider that SB to be a greater upset than this one would be, but you don't seem to be giving the Pats too much credit for how well they were playing at the time.

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "the Patriots had an eight game winning streak." They had struggled mightily in the playoffs. They looked terrible for most of the Raiders game, but we all know about the great comeback in the snow. And they got outplayed by the Steelers in the AFC title game, but won because of a punt return (that came after Pittsburgh got a penalty and had to re-kick) and a blocked FG that was returned for a touchdown. Aside from those plays, the Patriots did not look very good. In those playoffs, the Patriots mastered the art of winning ugly, which they also pretty much did in the Super Bowl, and against a Rams team that was clicking on all cylinders heading into the big game.

The Giants haven't been winning ugly? They had 230 yards of offense in the Dallas game.

Winning by being opportunistic with the drives you actually put together isn't winning ugly, per se, especially when compared to winning ugly by looking pedestrian all-around, but pulling off a few fluky special teams plays.

 

[CalBear]

Here's some more historical perspective on Jets-Colts:

The Colts dominated the NFL that year, going 13-1, winning 10 in a row as the #2 offense and #1 defense in the league. They'd just come off crushing the Cleveland Browns 34-0 in the league championship game. The Jets weren't even the best team in the junior league; the Raiders and Chiefs both had better records and better stats than the Jets; the Raiders had to play an extra playoff game because they were tied with the Chiefs, and that was largely considered to be the reason the Jets were able to sneak into the Super Bowl with a 27-23 win.

There had only been two NFL-AFL games played, and the NFL team crushed the AFL team in both (combined score, 68-24). The NFL was considered the only "real" league; it would be like if the CFL champion played the NFL champion two years in a row and got crushed both times.

So imagine a situation where the CFL champion was widely perceived to not even be the best team in the CFL, and was coming down to play the NFL champion in a game. Who would give them any chance at all? The betting line (Colts -22) is the highest of any Super Bowl, and I would expect is probably the highest line of any game since the merger.

Giants over Pats would be a big upset, but in this age of parity it wouldn't even be in the same league as Super Bowl III.

 

[MarshallRob]

Here's some more historical perspective on Jets-Colts:

The Colts dominated the NFL that year, going 13-1, winning 10 in a row as the #2 offense and #1 defense in the league. They'd just come off crushing the Cleveland Browns 34-0 in the league championship game. The Jets weren't even the best team in the junior league; the Raiders and Chiefs both had better records and better stats than the Jets; the Raiders had to play an extra playoff game because they were tied with the Chiefs, and that was largely considered to be the reason the Jets were able to sneak into the Super Bowl with a 27-23 win.

There had only been two NFL-AFL games played, and the NFL team crushed the AFL team in both (combined score, 68-24). The NFL was considered the only "real" league; it would be like if the CFL champion played the NFL champion two years in a row and got crushed both times.

So imagine a situation where the CFL champion was widely perceived to not even be the best team in the CFL, and was coming down to play the NFL champion in a game. Who would give them any chance at all? The betting line (Colts -22) is the highest of any Super Bowl, and I would expect is probably the highest line of any game since the merger.

Giants over Pats would be a big upset, but in this age of parity it wouldn't even be in the same league as Super Bowl III.

The Colts went 11-1-2 in 1967 (and missed the playoffs!) so they had lost just two games in two years at the time of Super Bowl III.

 

[Please See Mine]

In hindsight, the Jets' victory over the Colts was really not that much of an upset. The 2 teams were much more evenly matched than people thought. It was more of a "shock" than a true upset, if you can differentiate the two.

In hindsight, what team that won an upset wasn't more evenly matched with its opponent than originally thought?

Exactly. In hindsight, maybe those Belichick/Brady Pats beating Mike Martz's Rams wasn't such an upset either.

In many cases, I agree, but that Pats' team beating the Rams was crazy. I think that looking back on it, the Patriots did not have the talent of the Rams. Belichick had flamed out in Cleveland and had a 6th-round pick at QB in his first year. That is much more of a mismatch, even in hindsight, than the Jets-Colts.We now think that it wasn't an upset because the Pats have been so successful since then, but the 01 team was an upstart, and can't be equated with being as good as the entire dynasty.

 

[valhallan]

1. Jets over Colts2. Patriots over Rams3. Giants over Patriots4. Everything elseJets over Colts was the equivalent of Boise State over the Rams, not the no-name Patriots over the Rams.Before the Patriots Silenced The Rams, nobody acknowledged individual members on the Pats squad to the extent that Burress, Strahan, Youmenura (butchered spelling?), and (at least in a pedigree sense) Manning are acknowledged today. In that regard, the Giants over the Pats would not be nearly as shocking to "informed" footbally fans, but "as shocking" to the general population and to bookmakers.

 

[valhallan]

Sorry, but 18-0 in the salary cap era >>> then anything else. This would be the biggest upset. For those of you pointing to week 17...the Patsies were already game planning of the playoffs. I take any wager posted that the Pats win by more than 3 points v. the NYG in the Super Bowl.

18-0 is impressive because truly this is an era when any team can beat any other team on "any given sunday". So with that in mind, Giants over Pats would not be that surprising. The surprise would be the Pats actually getting to 19-0.

 

[Tau837]

Since there is a strong debate about this year's Pats being the GTOAT it only stands to reason if the Giants can beat them that it would be the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

No, your conclusion does not follow. The biggest upset is the result of the largest delta between the two teams, not based on how great the favorite team is. And given that the Giants almost beat the Patriots 4 weeks ago, it does not stand to reason that the delta between the two teams can be the largest in the history of the Super Bowl.

The Giants are a #5 seed who didn't even win their division. The Pats have been head and shoulders above the league the entire year. They haven't lost. There is talk of the GTOAT in the air. I'm sorry, but this delta is huge. If you are a Pats fan, and you truly believe this team should be considered the GTOAT, then put your money where your mouth is, step up and say this will be a huge upset if the Giants win. If you hedge your bets hemming and hawing about how the Giants are so close to the Pats in talent, well, then the Pats are certainly not the GTOAT because the Giants are nowhere near the GTOAT.I have no doubt that the Patriots will win this game. I'll be shocked if they do not. Not a Pats or Giants fan.

First of all, I'm not a Pats fan. And I am not convinced this Pats team is the greatest of all time. But even if they are, it does not follow as a logical conclusion that the delta between them and a #5 seed playoff team is the greatest delta between Super Bowl teams of all time. It is possible, but not a certainty. You are stating it as if one follows from the other, which is not true.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Since there is a strong debate about this year's Pats being the GTOAT it only stands to reason if the Giants can beat them that it would be the biggest upset in Super Bowl history.

No, your conclusion does not follow. The biggest upset is the result of the largest delta between the two teams, not based on how great the favorite team is. And given that the Giants almost beat the Patriots 4 weeks ago, it does not stand to reason that the delta between the two teams can be the largest in the history of the Super Bowl.

The Giants are a #5 seed who didn't even win their division. The Pats have been head and shoulders above the league the entire year. They haven't lost. There is talk of the GTOAT in the air. I'm sorry, but this delta is huge. If you are a Pats fan, and you truly believe this team should be considered the GTOAT, then put your money where your mouth is, step up and say this will be a huge upset if the Giants win. If you hedge your bets hemming and hawing about how the Giants are so close to the Pats in talent, well, then the Pats are certainly not the GTOAT because the Giants are nowhere near the GTOAT.I have no doubt that the Patriots will win this game. I'll be shocked if they do not. Not a Pats or Giants fan.

First of all, I'm not a Pats fan. And I am not convinced this Pats team is the greatest of all time. But even if they are, it does not follow as a logical conclusion that the delta between them and a #5 seed playoff team is the greatest delta between Super Bowl teams of all time. It is possible, but not a certainty. You are stating it as if one follows from the other, which is not true.

Just as a side note, can we end the "delta" expression before it "takes off"?tia

 

[GregR_2]

Went with Jets-Colts and I don't think it's very close. The AFL players were openly referred to as the "NFL's Rejects" by the media of the day. Obviously they reached a point where that wasn't the case. But the perception of the day was probably closer to what it would have been if the NFL champion had played the USFL champion. Not quite that bad as the AFL had more years in existence and was pulling good talent from colleges, but the perception that a lot of the league was still rejects was there.

 

[qimqam]

Giants over Pats would be a huge upset if -

The Pats were still steamrolling teams - They are not

The Giants weren't red hot - They are

The Giants didn't play head to head with the Pats just a couple of weeks ago - They Did

 

[Das Boot]

Other than the Vegas line which is WAY off, the Giants winning will barely be an upset.

It will be unexpected by casual NFL fans, and it will be disappointing to Pats fans, but it will not be much of an upset.

 

[money.never.sleeps]

Jets over Colts.The Colts were in another league, literally.

Baltimore was by far the "superior" team and to top it off were in another league compared to the lesser Joe Namath led Jets.I struggled to decide between the Chiefs over the Vikings along with Patriots over Rams.

There is no doubt that this was the "Biggest"; however... I am way too young to ever see it or even pretend I know anything about that Game.I voted for the Pats over the Rams... that was just a terrible yr and that SB made you forget about your troubles.However; I would say that the Giants over the Bills in the 90's was Biggest Upset I ever seen. The back up QB leading his team to the win; the missed FG at the end... just a great game.

Being only 25, I never saw the "older" Super Bowls with Jets,Colts or Vikes, Chiefs but like yourself I agree that Jeff Hostetlar leading the Giants and Norwood missing that kick for the Bills at end of game is def. a sleeper Upset. Also one first Superbowls I remember watching as a kid.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The '68 Colts remain one of the most underrated teams of all time. They'd without a doubt be in the discussion for the GREATEST team of all time if they had won that Super Bowl. There are lots of ways to explain how good that team was, but here's the simplest:

The '99 Rams outscored opponents by 17.8 PPG. The '91 Redskins? 16.3. '85 Bears? 16.1. The '68 Colts? 18.4. The '68 Colts outscored opponents by more points per game than any team from 1962-2006. Think about that for a minute.

The '85 Bears allowed 12.4 PPG. That's pretty good. The '68 Colts? They allowed 10.3 PPG. That's a full two points better than the vaunted Bears D, and it's better than the '00 Ravens or '86 Bears or '02 Bucs D.

The Colts went 13-1, losing to the Browns in the regular season. In the NFL Championship Game, Baltimore played Cleveland again, in Cleveland, and won 34-0.

So you've got a 13-1 team with the best scoring differential of the Super Bowl era, with the lowest points allowed per game of any Super Bowl winner ever, that revenged its only loss with a 34-0 win in enemy territory.

Obviously they lost the game, but had they won, Baltimore would rightly be considered among the best SB Champions ever. Earl Morall has taken a lot of criticism by modern day analysts, but he led the NFL in passer rating that season. He averaged 9.2 yards per pass that season -- the same as Peyton Manning in '04 -- the seventh highest rating by ANY QB since 1960.

Along with the '01 Rams and the '83 Redskins, they're undoubtedly one of the three greatest SB losers of all time. Obviously the Patriots would jump to #1 on this list, but I think the Colts were still a bit better than any other SB loser ever.

 

[Raider Nation]

The '68 Colts remain one of the most underrated teams of all time. They'd without a doubt be in the discussion for the GREATEST team of all time if they had won that Super Bowl. There are lots of ways to explain how good that team was, but here's the simplest:

The '99 Rams outscored opponents by 17.8 PPG. The '91 Redskins? 16.3. '85 Bears? 16.1. The '68 Colts? 18.4. The '68 Colts outscored opponents by more points per game than any team from 1962-2006. Think about that for a minute.

The '85 Bears allowed 12.4 PPG. That's pretty good. The '68 Colts? They allowed 10.3 PPG. That's a full two points better than the vaunted Bears D, and it's better than the '00 Ravens or '86 Bears or '02 Bucs D.

The Colts went 13-1, losing to the Browns in the regular season. In the NFL Championship Game, Baltimore played Cleveland again, in Cleveland, and won 34-0.

So you've got a 13-1 team with the best scoring differential of the Super Bowl era, with the lowest points allowed per game of any Super Bowl winner ever, that revenged its only loss with a 34-0 win in enemy territory.

Obviously they lost the game, but had they won, Baltimore would rightly be considered among the best SB Champions ever. Earl Morall has taken a lot of criticism by modern day analysts, but he led the NFL in passer rating that season. He averaged 9.2 yards per pass that season -- the same as Peyton Manning in '04 -- the seventh highest rating by ANY QB since 1960.

Along with the '01 Rams and the '83 Redskins, they're undoubtedly one of the three greatest SB losers of all time. Obviously the Patriots would jump to #1 on this list, but I think the Colts were still a bit better than any other SB loser ever.

That data lends credence to what the conspiracy theorists have been claiming for 40 years: Pete Rozelle and a group of powerful owners ordered Carroll Rosenbloom and the Colts to lose the game, so that the merger would be more readily accepted by the public. Lose the game for the "greater good" of the league, and all that.

 

[26554]

Hello, first time poster, long-time reader.

I'd add the Raiders victory over the Redskins in SB XVIII as at least an honorable mention. Going into that game, quite a few people were talking about the 1982/83 Redskins in the same breath as Lombardi's Packers, Shula's Dolphins and Noll's Steelers. Also, I believe the Raiders win over the Eagles in SB XV was a surprise to many.

 

[GregR_2]

Hello, first time poster, long-time reader.I'd add the Raiders victory over the Redskins in SB XVIII as at least an honorable mention. Going into that game, quite a few people were talking about the 1982/83 Redskins in the same breath as Lombardi's Packers, Shula's Dolphins and Noll's Steelers. Also, I believe the Raiders win over the Eagles in SB XV was a surprise to many.

Welcome off the pier and into the water.

 

[JohnnyU]

The '68 Colts remain one of the most underrated teams of all time. They'd without a doubt be in the discussion for the GREATEST team of all time if they had won that Super Bowl. There are lots of ways to explain how good that team was, but here's the simplest:

The '99 Rams outscored opponents by 17.8 PPG. The '91 Redskins? 16.3. '85 Bears? 16.1. The '68 Colts? 18.4. The '68 Colts outscored opponents by more points per game than any team from 1962-2006. Think about that for a minute.

The '85 Bears allowed 12.4 PPG. That's pretty good. The '68 Colts? They allowed 10.3 PPG. That's a full two points better than the vaunted Bears D, and it's better than the '00 Ravens or '86 Bears or '02 Bucs D.

The Colts went 13-1, losing to the Browns in the regular season. In the NFL Championship Game, Baltimore played Cleveland again, in Cleveland, and won 34-0.

So you've got a 13-1 team with the best scoring differential of the Super Bowl era, with the lowest points allowed per game of any Super Bowl winner ever, that revenged its only loss with a 34-0 win in enemy territory.

Obviously they lost the game, but had they won, Baltimore would rightly be considered among the best SB Champions ever. Earl Morall has taken a lot of criticism by modern day analysts, but he led the NFL in passer rating that season. He averaged 9.2 yards per pass that season -- the same as Peyton Manning in '04 -- the seventh highest rating by ANY QB since 1960.

Along with the '01 Rams and the '83 Redskins, they're undoubtedly one of the three greatest SB losers of all time. Obviously the Patriots would jump to #1 on this list, but I think the Colts were still a bit better than any other SB loser ever.

That data lends credence to what the conspiracy theorists have been claiming for 40 years: Pete Rozelle and a group of powerful owners ordered Carroll Rosenbloom and the Colts to lose the game, so that the merger would be more readily accepted by the public. Lose the game for the "greater good" of the league, and all that.

Bubba Smith told a cabbie the game was fixed. Remember the play where Jimmy Orr was standing all alone for a TD waving his hands? If you look at the film you can see that Earl Morrall was looking right at him, but instead thew the ball over the middle where Johnny Sample intercepted it. Tell me how he could do that?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I have a hard time believing that a Giants win, after beating the Cowboys and Packers back to back as a road team, that was leading the Patriots in week 17 by 12 in the 3rd quarter and only lost by a FG, would be considered such a huge upset.Everyone is basing their expectations of the Patriots based on their blowout win against Dallas when they were on a roll. Fact is, they haven't blown out any good team they've played since then and are coming out as only 3-4 point winners most of the time. Public perception of their wins recently is ridiculous, which is evidenced by them being something like 1-7 against the spread the last 8 games. They haven't been head and shoulders better than any good team they've played since Dallas, merely good enough to win.So a Giants win wouldn't come close to shocking me enough to consider it an all-time upset. It will be a memorable upset because they would spoil the Pats quest for undefeated though.

 

[jabarony]

If anyone knows anything about the history of the game, they'd vote SB3. AFL was JV until then.

 

[jabarony]

The '68 Colts remain one of the most underrated teams of all time. They'd without a doubt be in the discussion for the GREATEST team of all time if they had won that Super Bowl. There are lots of ways to explain how good that team was, but here's the simplest:

The '99 Rams outscored opponents by 17.8 PPG. The '91 Redskins? 16.3. '85 Bears? 16.1. The '68 Colts? 18.4. The '68 Colts outscored opponents by more points per game than any team from 1962-2006. Think about that for a minute.

The '85 Bears allowed 12.4 PPG. That's pretty good. The '68 Colts? They allowed 10.3 PPG. That's a full two points better than the vaunted Bears D, and it's better than the '00 Ravens or '86 Bears or '02 Bucs D.

The Colts went 13-1, losing to the Browns in the regular season. In the NFL Championship Game, Baltimore played Cleveland again, in Cleveland, and won 34-0.

So you've got a 13-1 team with the best scoring differential of the Super Bowl era, with the lowest points allowed per game of any Super Bowl winner ever, that revenged its only loss with a 34-0 win in enemy territory.

Obviously they lost the game, but had they won, Baltimore would rightly be considered among the best SB Champions ever. Earl Morall has taken a lot of criticism by modern day analysts, but he led the NFL in passer rating that season. He averaged 9.2 yards per pass that season -- the same as Peyton Manning in '04 -- the seventh highest rating by ANY QB since 1960.

Along with the '01 Rams and the '83 Redskins, they're undoubtedly one of the three greatest SB losers of all time. Obviously the Patriots would jump to #1 on this list, but I think the Colts were still a bit better than any other SB loser ever.

That data lends credence to what the conspiracy theorists have been claiming for 40 years: Pete Rozelle and a group of powerful owners ordered Carroll Rosenbloom and the Colts to lose the game, so that the merger would be more readily accepted by the public. Lose the game for the "greater good" of the league, and all that.

Hey RaiderNation - fix your sig.18-1 *

 

[Das Boot]

Other than the Vegas line which is WAY off, the Giants winning will barely be an upset.It will be unexpected by casual NFL fans, and it will be disappointing to Pats fans, but it will not be much of an upset.