Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

It's hard enough to remember what really did happen!

I don't see the '65 Bills as a better team than the teams the Packers beat in SB I & II. The '65 Packers, however, were probably better than their '66 and '67 clubs. So I see Green Bay winning this game that never happened.

Bob Gill wrote:The Packers beat the Browns by 11 (23-12, wasn't it?), and that team had JIM BROWN, plus Frank Ryan, Paul Warfield and Gary Collins. I can't see the Bills scoring more than 10, and that would be a stretch. On the other hand, I think the Packers would have scored AT LEAST 23 against Buffalo, so I think they would've won by a couple of touchdowns, maybe more. I can't see it being much of a contest.

Yeah, I don't see how the Bills would score on offense. The teams were pretty similar in styles, but IMO the Packers were superior in just about every area. The Packers defensive secondary was super tough...looking at stats, the Packers nearly doubled up their opponents in passer rating (83.1 vs. 48.2) while the Bills were actually worse than their opponents (52.2 vs. 54.2). Although its probably not an entirely accurate way to forecast a game, but going through the starting rosters I see only 4 guys from the Bills who might be a starter on the 65 Packers...Billy Shaw on offense, Tom Sestak on defense, and probably Butch Byrd for Jeter and Saimes for Tom Brown (even if those aren't exactly 1-for-1 position exchanges). The point being that if the Packers are already more talented than their opponent in every phase, I don't think a Lombardi-coached team would underperform to the degree in which they would lose the game.

Its easy to predict a GB victory over the 65 Bills but the Bills were tougher than people realize. They played well as a team and could force turnovers. Despite a powerful offense on the Chargers team with Hadl, Lowe, Alworth, Lincoln and others, the Bills shut them out. Billy Joe ran with power and former Raider, Roberson and Dubenion had the speed to go deep. I think the Pack would have won by at least six points ...

Brian wolf wrote:Its easy to predict a GB victory over the 65 Bills but the Bills were tougher than people realize. They played well as a team and could force turnovers. Despite a powerful offense on the Chargers team with Hadl, Lowe, Alworth, Lincoln and others, the Bills shut them out. Billy Joe ran with power and former Raider, Roberson and Dubenion had the speed to go deep. I think the Pack would have won by at least six points ...

It would never have been that close.

I think the over/under on Kemp throwing INTs would have been 5 and I'd take the over.

JohnH19 wrote:

JuggernautJ wrote: And that's not a negative on the Bills... Lombardi's Packers were simply the best team in football from 1961 till (at least) the mid-60's.

The Packers were quite clearly the best team in football until Lombardi quit coaching them. Don’t underestimate the ‘67 team who lost their last two regular season games in a near miracle to the Rams and then a meaningless finale to the Steelers.

That football simulation I recently purchased. . .with it I purchased a "Super Playoff" package which features the 16 most lopsided winners of the S.B. Kind of arbitrary but the two I picked as the top two seeds were the 1985 Bears and the 1984 49ers. The 1984 49ers were (much to my surprise) upset in the first round by the 1976 Raiders. The 1966 Packers and the 1967 Packers each made it to the semifinal round of the tournament and the 1967 Packers WON the whole thing, defeating the 1985 Bears in the championship game (after the 1985 Bears had beaten the 1966 Packers in the semifinal round).

Here's a trivia question, along this vein:

If the Super Bowl had started with the onset of the AFL in 1960, how many different franchises would the Packers have faced, to date, in Super Bowl history?

superbowlfanatic wrote:Here's a trivia question, along this vein:

If the Super Bowl had started with the onset of the AFL in 1960, how many different franchises would the Packers have faced, to date, in Super Bowl history?

1961 - Houston Oilers
1962 - Dallas Texans

1965 - Buffalo Bills
1966 - Kansas City Chiefs (SB I)
1967 - Oakland Raiders (SB II)

1996 - New England Patriots
1997 - Denver Broncos

2010 - Pittsburgh Steelers

So, with eight Super Bowls (real and theoretical) with only one being against the same franchise (Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs) the correct answer would be.. 7?

One of my worst memories is that Sunday afternoon long ago when our HS team, at the time unbeaten and rated third in the state, was upset by a winless team from a small school. On paper, we should've beaten them about 35-0. (We'd won our previous 3 games by a combined score of 134 to 6.) We weren't cocky, the weather wasn't bad, the breaks just seemed to fall in our opponent's favor all afternoon. Tipped balls, blocked kicks, penalties, you name it. We walked off that field in a state of shock. Since then I've always been a firm believer in "On any given Sunday...." no matter what the sport or day of the week involved.

So, yeah, on paper the '65 Packers would probably easily beat the Bills in this mythical matchup. I imagine it'd be a rather boring and methodical win, something along the lines of 28-7. But let's remember the '68 Colts, 15-1 and fresh off a 34-0 pasting of Cleveland in the NFL title game, who should've demolished the Jets...on paper. We all know how that turned out.

JuggernautJ wrote:

superbowlfanatic wrote:Here's a trivia question, along this vein:

If the Super Bowl had started with the onset of the AFL in 1960, how many different franchises would the Packers have faced, to date, in Super Bowl history?

1961 - Houston Oilers
1962 - Dallas Texans

1965 - Buffalo Bills
1966 - Kansas City Chiefs (SB I)
1967 - Oakland Raiders (SB II)

1996 - New England Patriots
1997 - Denver Broncos

2010 - Pittsburgh Steelers

So, with eight Super Bowls (real and theoretical) with only one being against the same franchise (Dallas Texans/Kansas City Chiefs) the correct answer would be.. 7?

That's a good job - you are correct!