Hypothetical post merger Playoff Bowls

[SeahawkFever]

Hi All,

Something I thought of in my free time: The Playoff Bowl.

As many of you are probably aware, it was played in the 1960's and was between the teams that finished third and fourth in the standings in the NFL.

One thought I had was what if the playoff bowl was hypothetically played every season past the merger between the two teams that lost in the conference championship game? Specifically who do you think would win the games if they were played? So far as I'm aware, rather few of these teams actually played each other in their respective seasons.

Either way, here are what the matchups would be by year, and who I'd favor in each one:

2023: Detroit vs Baltimore - Baltimore
2022: San Francisco vs Cincinnati - Cincinnati
2021: San Francisco vs Kansas City - Kansas City
2020: Green Bay vs Buffalo - Green Bay
2019: Green Bay vs Tennessee - Green Bay
2018: New Orleans vs Kansas City - New Orleans
2017: Minnesota vs Jacksonville - Jacksonville
2016: Green Bay vs Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh
2015: Arizona vs New England - Arizona
2014: Green Bay vs Indianapolis - Green Bay
2013: San Francisco vs New England - San Francisco
2012: Atlanta vs New England - New England
2011: San Francisco vs Baltimore - Baltimore
2010: Chicago vs New York - New York Jets
2009: Minnesota vs New York - Minnesota
2008: Philadelphia vs Baltimore - Philadelphia
2007: Green Bay vs San Diego - Green Bay
2006: New Orleans vs New England - New England
2005: Carolina vs Denver - Denver
2004: Pittsburgh vs Atlanta - Pittsburgh
2003: Philadelphia vs Indianapolis - Indianapolis
2002: Philadelphia vs Tennessee - Philadelphia
2001: Philadelphia vs Pittsburgh - Philadelphia
2000: Minnesota vs Oakland - Oakland
1999: Tampa Bay vs Jacksonville - Jacksonville
1998: Minnesota vs New York - Minnesota
1997: San Francisco vs Pittsburgh - San Francisco
1996: Carolina vs Jacksonville - Carolina
1995: Green Bay vs Indianapolis - Green Bay
1994: Dallas vs Pittsburgh - Dallas
1993: San Francisco vs Kansas City - San Francisco
1992: San Francisco vs Miami - San Francisco
1991: Detroit vs Denver - Denver
1990: San Francisco vs Los Angeles Raiders - San Francisco
1989: Los Angeles Rams vs Cleveland - Los Angeles
1988: Chicago vs Buffalo - Buffalo
1987: Minnesota vs Cleveland - Cleveland
1986: Washington vs Cleveland - Washington
1985: Los Angeles vs Miami - Miami
1984: Chicago vs Pittsburgh - Chicago
1983: San Francisco vs Seattle - San Francisco
1982: Dallas vs New York Jets - New York
1981: Dallas vs San Diego - Dallas
1980: Dallas vs San Diego - Dallas
1979: Tampa Bay vs Houston - Houston
1978: Los Angeles vs Houston - Los Angeles
1977: Minnesota vs Oakland - Oakland
1976: Los Angeles vs Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh (see below)
1975: Los Angeles vs Oakland - Oakland
1974: Los Angeles vs Oakland - Oakland
1973: Dallas vs Oakland - Dallas
1972: Dallas vs Pittsburgh - Dallas
1971: San Francisco vs Baltimore - Baltimore
1970: San Francisco vs Oakland - San Francisco

Some matchups I found easier to make a guess on than others.

I should note that in 1976 that I would favor Pittsburgh if both teams are fully healthy, but I think it's possible that Los Angeles could've beaten the team Pittsburgh had healthy for the 1976 AFC Championship Game.

Also of note: I didn't realize the Raiders lost six AFC Championship Games in the span of a decade (going back to 1968 if you count that season's AFL Championship Game). Counting their Super Bowl appearances, Oakland went to eight AFC Championship games in eleven seasons.

Either way, I'd be curious to hear what we all have to say about these hypothetical matchups.

[74_75_78_79_]

Nice list! And time put into it!

The problem with the 'Playoff Bowl' was you could never be sure if the winner won it because they were actually better or because the losing team simply wasn't motivated enough. We all know how Vince felt about the event. Playing for a bronze medal in the Olympics or a college team playing in a non-National Championship Bowl game - up until recent years, that is - is one thing, but it didn't seem to work in the NFL nor would it in any of the other three major sports. Perhaps some big incentive would be needed to assure each team playing their best as if it were still a real playoff game. Only so much money, these days, that you could give each player to even want to play in it after the season yet along get them motivated for "3rd best" in the league.

But simply seeing the two best teams of each year that didn't make the Super Bowl and who you think was better between the two not a bad thing to ponder. I see you have the Bills as better than the Bears in '88. But do remember that both played each other that year with Chicago winning at home, 24-3. It was Buffalo's only loss within that 11-1 start. But it may have been an upset thus Bills possibly winning a meaningful rematch; maybe, maybe not. What made that Rams/Titans Super Bowl special was the contrast-in-styles. Well, had Tampa Bay & Jacksonville squared off instead for all-the-marbles, that also would have been that kind of match-up; a toss-up, I'd think.

Again, great putting together of the list!

[Citizen]

That list underscores how phenomenal it is that the Cowboys and Raiders never faced each other in the Super Bowl.

[Brian wolf]

After losing tough championship games, the players wouldn't have cared about another game. It's amazing the Pro Bowl got any motivation from players, other than the money and a free trip to Hawaii ...

[Jay Z]

Remember in the early history of the league teams still played non-league games. At the time the point was to just make money for that day on the live gate. Who knew if your players would stick around, the team would stick around, the league would stick around.

By the 1960s the Playoff Bowl, Pro Bowl, College All Star Game, preseason games were all about the same. There would be more subbing in and out. I don't think any of those were at the level of a regular season or playoff game at that point in time. But the difference was a lot less than it is today. You'd get more subbing in and out but it was still football, you'd still see all of the regular plays you saw in other games. The life and death mythology, sanctity of regular season and playoffs wasn't built up to that point yet. People just wanted to see a game.

[Bob Gill]

After losing tough championship games, the players wouldn't have cared about another game.

I think that's what killed the Playoff Bowl, in fact. For the first several years, the teams involved were just the ones that finished second, and the postseason appearance served as a lower-class award for a successful season, and they took it pretty seriously. But after the NFL split into four divisions in 1966, the participants in the Playoff Bowl were just the teams that lost a first-round playoff game, so it became just a "consolation game," a parting gift for losers.

Before anybody brings up Lombardi's "hinky-dink game" comments, I think that more or less a case of sour grapes; as I recall, he said it after losing the Playoff Bowl against the Cardinals after the 1964 season, but didn't say anything like that after beating the Browns a year earlier.

[Jay Z]

After losing tough championship games, the players wouldn't have cared about another game.

I think that's what killed the Playoff Bowl, in fact. For the first several years, the teams involved were just the ones that finished second, and the postseason appearance served as a lower-class award for a successful season, and they took it pretty seriously. But after the NFL split into four divisions in 1966, the participants in the Playoff Bowl were just the teams that lost a first-round playoff game, so it became just a "consolation game," a parting gift for losers.

Before anybody brings up Lombardi's "hinky-dink game" comments, I think that more or less a case of sour grapes; as I recall, he said it after losing the Playoff Bowl against the Cardinals after the 1964 season, but didn't say anything like that after beating the Browns a year earlier.

Maybe they could have kept it as second place teams. Best second place team out of the divisions. That gets the 1967 Colts something.

1967 Colts vs Giants
1968 Rams vs Cardinals
1969 Lions vs Redskins

So Lombardi gets another "hinky-dink" game as his sendoff. He lost his last game anyway.

[Brian wolf]

Like 74_75_78_79 stated, an interesting list of matchups that could have been SB matchups, rather than playing in a losers bowl.

I don't believe the Cowboys without Calvin Hill could have beaten the Raiders in early 1974 however ...

I don't believe the Jets would have beaten the Cowboys in early 1983 even without Danny White. Todd would have thrown five interceptions against the Flex, unless Wesley Walker could have beaten them deep.

SF and Seattle would have been a great SB matchup in early 1984 but without Dwight Clark, a very close game.

I think Montana and the Chiefs would have beaten the 49ers in an early 1994 SB.

The Steelers might have beaten Dallas in an early 1995 SB. Emmitt Smith was injured later in the championship game against SF and Aikman would have had a tough time without a running game.

I think the Jaguars could have beaten either the Panthers in early 1997 or the Bucs in early 2000.

The Raiders wouldn't have beaten the Vikings in early 2001 without Gannon.

Will give opinions on other matchups later, alot to look at.

[Brian wolf]

Thanks again SeahawksFever for an interesting post ...

Hypothetical SB Matchups/Playoff Bowls Two ...

I feel in an early 2003 SB, the Titans would have beaten the Eagles who didn't have quality wide receivers.

I felt the 2008 Ravens were stronger than the Eagles, even with a rookie QB and would have won in early 2009.

Brady and the Patriots would have beaten Palmer and the Cards in early 2016, I believe.

Mahomes and the Chiefs high powered offense would have won a shootout against Brees and the Saints in early 2019. Possibly the highest scoring SB ever?

[SeahawkFever]

Like 74_75_78_79 stated, an interesting list of matchups that could have been SB matchups, rather than playing in a losers bowl.

I don't believe the Cowboys without Calvin Hill could have beaten the Raiders in early 1974 however ...

I don't believe the Jets would have beaten the Cowboys in early 1983 even without Danny White. Todd would have thrown five interceptions against the Flex, unless Wesley Walker could have beaten them deep.

SF and Seattle would have been a great SB matchup in early 1984 but without Dwight Clark, a very close game.

I think Montana and the Chiefs would have beaten the 49ers in an early 1994 SB.

The Steelers might have beaten Dallas in an early 1995 SB. Emmitt Smith was injured later in the championship game against SF and Aikman would have had a tough time without a running game.

I think the Jaguars could have beaten either the Panthers in early 1997 or the Bucs in early 2000.

The Raiders wouldn't have beaten the Vikings in early 2001 without Gannon.

Will give opinions on other matchups later, alot to look at.

I gotta be honest, I was not familiar with the injuries you mentioned (other than the 76 Steelers which I mentioned in my post). I could see why you would argue the other way given those. In particular the 2000 Raiders vs Vikings if they had to start a backup quarterback (though they would be facing a 24th ranked Minnesota defense that was 27th ranked in opposing yards per carry).

Regarding the 82 Jets vs Cowboys: If the 82 Jets are playing a game on a different field than they did (no guarantees, but I doubt the field would be as muddy as it was during the 82 AFC Title Game), then Freeman McNeil could have done better than 46 yards rushing on 17 carries with a singular nine yard reception. He had over 300 yards in the two games before that. I wouldn't expect a good game out of Richard Todd (who had some solid passing stats in the 1982 regular season, but couldn't carry that into the conference championship game), but I think that running game could have been a factor there.

Not a Jets fan, but I do think the field may have hurt their running game, and while they lost to Miami all three times they played them, they only lost one other game to another team, and I don't know if they'd lose to Dallas.

Side note: The 1982 AFC Championship Game gets my vote for the worst quarterbacked game that late in the playoffs in NFL history (eight combined interceptions and sacks by Richard Todd and David Woodley, and their passer ratings combined for 24.3, with both offenses combining for 23 first downs, nine turnovers, and 19 punts, and neither offense reaching 200 total yards)

As for the 90's Niners, I think 1993 is definitely the one of the four in that decade where you would have the best argument for picking the AFC team over them (though the NFC was considered better by just about all accounts during the 80's and early to mid 90's). The 93 team in particular was in transition on defense and was worse than Kansas City's by points (I see some starters from the late 80's Super Bowl teams aging out of the starting lineup, and players from the mid 90's teams starting to take their place); though their offense did rank 1st and KC's was eighth.

I could see why you would say Kansas City there if you go by who had the better worse component, and I may be inclined to change my mind now that I think about it.