Meaningless end-of-year losses that tarnished legacies (?)

[Bryan]

The 1973 Dolphins lost a meaningless game (with backup Earl Morrall at QB) to the Colts at the end of the regular season. The 1975 Steelers lost a meaningless game (with backup QB Joe Gilliam) to the Rams at the end of the regular season. If the 1973 Dolphins had gone 13-1 instead of 12-2, would that specific 73 team be discussed as one of the greatest teams ever? Usually its the 72 team that gets put forward. Also, would going 33-1 instead of 32-2 over a two-year period give that Dolphins team a greater claim to 'best team ever'? Same holds true for the 1975 Steelers...if they had gone 13-1 would that team be put forward as one of the greatest ever instead of the 1978 Steelers team?

[Gary Najman]

The 2009 Indianapolis Colts started 14-0, then benched their starters for the final two games against the Jets and Bills (they lost both games with Curtis Painter starting at QB instead of Peyton Manning), The move, widely criticzied, paid off as the Colts eventually reached the Super Bowl, but they lost it against the Saints.

[7DnBrnc53]

The 2009 Indianapolis Colts started 14-0, then benched their starters for the final two games against the Jets and Bills (they lost both games with Curtis Painter starting at QB instead of Peyton Manning), The move, widely criticzied, paid off as the Colts eventually reached the Super Bowl, but they lost it against the Saints.

When they were down 17-6 to the Jets in the 09 AFC Title Game, I was thinking "they will never live down what they did at the end of the regular season". Luckily, Peyton got the offense going, and they won in a runaway.

[7DnBrnc53]

In 1972, in a meaningless season-ending loss to the Chiefs, Falcons RB Dave Hampton reached the 1,000 yard mark, but then he got tackled for a loss, and finished with 995 yards (he would go on to rush for 1,000 yards only one time, in 1975).

[sluggermatt15]

If I remember right, the 1958 Colts had the Western Division wrapped up with two games left in the regular season. They lost their last two games, 30-28 at the Rams & 21-12 at the 49ers. If they did not take it easy, they could have finished 11-1 instead of 9-3.

[74_75_78_79_]

The 1973 Dolphins lost a meaningless game (with backup Earl Morrall at QB) to the Colts at the end of the regular season. The 1975 Steelers lost a meaningless game (with backup QB Joe Gilliam) to the Rams at the end of the regular season. If the 1973 Dolphins had gone 13-1 instead of 12-2, would that specific 73 team be discussed as one of the greatest teams ever? Usually its the 72 team that gets put forward. Also, would going 33-1 instead of 32-2 over a two-year period give that Dolphins team a greater claim to 'best team ever'? Same holds true for the 1975 Steelers...if they had gone 13-1 would that team be put forward as one of the greatest ever instead of the 1978 Steelers team?

Yes, as a big admirer of that '73 Dolphin squad (who does opine that they're noticeably better than '72 regardless of '17-0'), that two-year back-to-back legacy would clearly have more historic 'bite' to it. But that said, I honestly and open-mindedly feel that the '75 Steelers would have even more 'bite' had their 2nd-team garnered victory in that finale vs the Rams. Sure enough that'd be popularly perceived as the 'Rock' of their Dynasty instead of '78 (which I already feel anyway despite 'just' going 12-2)!

I keep forgetting that the '94 Forty Niners were 'just' 13-3 instead of 14-2. And Joe Gibbs' 1991 installment...may as well say they finished 15-1!

Many see the '67 Packers as the 'lesser' champ of their Dynasty. Understandable especially in that they were the oldest such squad, and that they no longer had...Taylor & Hornung! But they were 9-2-1 with two games left! They barely lose to the 9-1-2 Rams in LA, and then in the finale (yes, playoff-position already set no matter what) actually lose at home to Bill Austin's 3-9-1 Steelers!

'53 Browns? They simply win their finale, they may at least get some '34/'42 Bears/'07 Pats notoriety. Or...maybe (maybe, that is) had they not lost that very finale, they may have not been 'deflated' for their title match thus achieved their own '48 - or '72 Miami's - notoriety instead! And if '54 & '55 then play-out as they did (which, sure enough, it would have), then they have an NFL three-peat with four NFL titles total instead of three-straight NFLCG defeats. A phenomenal Dynasty just the same even so, but MAN what a significant 'extra' a '53 title (undefeated, mind you) would have added!

[Some Guy From Mars]

But that said, I honestly and open-mindedly feel that the '75 Steelers would have even more 'bite' had their 2nd-team garnered victory in that finale vs the Rams. Sure enough that'd be popularly perceived as the 'Rock' of their Dynasty instead of '78 (which I already feel anyway despite 'just' going 12-2)!

IMHO a 13-1 Steelers record in 1975 would have look better if they had instead defeated the Buffalo Bills in week 2, rather than giving up 200+ yards to OJ Simpson. Besides, it would have been a shame to see the Steelers push hard to defeat the Rams in the season finale only to lose a couple of key starters to injury for the playoffs.

Which leads to my main point: it is dissapointing that the NFL scheduled an end of the season game between two mid-seventies powerhouses such as the Steelers and Rams. You would think someone in the NFL offices would have had the hindsight to see it as a potential meaningless game in light of how more than likely both teams would have had their respective divisions wrapped up- and have nothing to play for in the process (turning the contest into a glorified 'pre-season' game).

It would have made better sense to schedule it in week 2 instead, keeping in mind the Steelers were already on the West coast from having played the season opener in San Diego. I can see Chuck Noll keeping the team in California an extra week as opposed to flying back to Pittsburgh (and then back to Los Angeles in a matter of days).

[BD Sullivan]

The 1969 Rams started out 11-0, then lost their last three before then falling in their first playoff game--all in the span of three weeks. Had they won that playoff game, they would have hosted the Browns in the championship game and maybe reached the Super Bowl.

[74_75_78_79_]

But that said, I honestly and open-mindedly feel that the '75 Steelers would have even more 'bite' had their 2nd-team garnered victory in that finale vs the Rams. Sure enough that'd be popularly perceived as the 'Rock' of their Dynasty instead of '78 (which I already feel anyway despite 'just' going 12-2)!

IMHO a 13-1 Steelers record in 1975 would have look better if they had instead defeated the Buffalo Bills in week 2, rather than giving up 200+ yards to OJ Simpson. Besides, it would have been a shame to see the Steelers push hard to defeat the Rams in the season finale only to lose a couple of key starters to injury for the playoffs.

Which leads to my main point: it is dissapointing that the NFL scheduled an end of the season game between two mid-seventies powerhouses such as the Steelers and Rams. You would think someone in the NFL offices would have had the hindsight to see it as a potential meaningless game in light of how more than likely both teams would have had their respective divisions wrapped up- and have nothing to play for in the process (turning the contest into a glorified 'pre-season' game).

It would have made better sense to schedule it in week 2 instead, keeping in mind the Steelers were already on the West coast from having played the season opener in San Diego. I can see Chuck Noll keeping the team in California an extra week as opposed to flying back to Pittsburgh (and then back to Los Angeles in a matter of days).

Yeah, I never understood pitting two great teams from opposing conferences in a finale! Such a waste of an overwise highly anticipated interconference matchup! Steelers at Rams for Wk2 in '75 instead of Buffalo a real good idea! Those two playing in the opener (and then 'Burgh going to SD the following week) not bad either! Look at that 'waste' of a finale between Raiders and Dallas the previous year? Both being pitted vs each other just a few weeks earlier (when Dallas was still in it and rallying from that weird 1-4 start) would have been obviously more sensible! Instead, we were robbed of ever having seen Madden's Raiders vs Landry's Cowboys in a meaningful game. 1980 (Flores now at Raiders helm) was amply close enough to it but still. What's worse? No Raiders/Cowboys Super Bowl '70s/1980 or no Yankees/Phillies World Series '70s/1980. Take your pick!

Then you got that '89 MNF finale between two interconference teams, Cincy@Min - Tale of Four Cities (Pit/GB to round things off)! So sometimes it worked. Not that both teams were good the year before nor were really expected to be going in, but GB@ NYJ in '81 worked out well! 'Tale of Four' itself in that it effected G-men and Denver.

[BD Sullivan]

Yeah, I never understood pitting two great teams from opposing conferences in a finale! Such a waste of an overwise highly anticipated interconference matchup!

ABC needed a strong game for the Saturday night clash to close out their season.