What's the worst ever Super Bowl performance by a team?

[LaFellSBXLIXMVP]

11 hours ago, pf9 said:

Too bad Peyton couldn't repeat that performance 2 years later. He single-handedly started Cam Newton's downfall. I doubt Newton is in the NFL next year.

He somehow played worse 2 years later.

1 hour ago, BigTrav said:

 

When KC are on a bye, I fire this game up with a scotch.

I watched that game back in march when lockdown was announced and I was going insane and it was worse than what I remembered. Really. It was pure humiliation and Hawks were the underdogs, just crazy when you think about it. Later it was told Seahawks D spend two weeks studying Peyton's signals, right?

[kramxel]

Besides the 2013 Broncos, I've always felt that the Bears against the Colts were a particularly flat performance in recent years. 

 

 

[7DnBrnc53]

16 hours ago, Awsi Dooger said:

I would say the 1969 Vikings deserve a mention. That was pathetic. Double digit 11 point favorite that was down 16-0 at halftime and basically non competitive after the first series of the game. I remember it well because of all the hype. That Vikings team was dominant and feared all season. Long winning streak that was unheard of in the NFL at that stage. NFL fans and also the sports media were in arrogant agreement that the Jets upset of the Colts a year earlier was mostly a fluke, and now the powerhouse Vikings would more than make up for it by thrashing the Chiefs. That was actually a big talking point before the game, that Minnesota would ruthlessly run up the score to restore the proper reputation and pecking order of the two leagues, before the merger in a few months. 

Instead the Chiefs simply had superior personnel and strategy, and it was quickly obvious. Joe Kapp suddenly looked like a hunchback old man. He never played for the Vikings again.

My grandfather was the only one I was aware of who predicted accurately. He scoffed at the Vikings being favored and insisted Kansas City would win with greater authority than the Jets had. It really stood out to be because although my papa was a football fan he seldom offered strong opinions beforehand. I've never understood how he figured it out. He was literally laughing every day at the notion that the Vikings would win.

The Chiefs were a bad match-up for the Vikings. I heard that the Raiders would have been a better one.

[lancerman]

18 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

My first thought was the '85 Patriots, but after thinking about it I think I'd have to go with the 2013 Broncos too.  That was just utter domination from literally the first play of the game. 

The big difference between the 85 Patriots and the 2013 Broncos was that the 85 Patriots were underdogs who were lucky to get in there and they were facing arguably the greatest team of the Super Bowl era who just had a playoff run where they shut out the only two other teams they played and everyone knew the Pats were dead in the water. 

The 2013 Broncos were actually one of the greatest offenses of all time and were actually the betting favorites to win the Super Bowl and from the first play on they got compeletly humiliated in a way you couldn't conceive they would. The Seahwawks were up 36-0 with 3 minutes left in the third against one of the most feared offenses ever and the one TD drive they gave up the Seattle DB's were basically just committing blatant PI's and then laughing about it because they didn't care anymore. And the truth is, it wasn't like the defense just collapsed and the offense could never get on the field. The offense gave up a safety on the first play which gave away winning the kickoff and gave Seattle points, gave away two interceptions that led to points, had 4 fumbles and lost 2 and then special teams gave up a TD to start the second half. It was a total across the board collapse when that speciifc team never should have been in that position. 

People forget, but Seattle wasn't the talk of the league that year. They were known as a great team, but that year was all about the Broncos all season. It was pretty much a given they were going to the Super Bowl. So to get beat that bad was a massive dissapointment.

[SkippyX]

The Seahawks were legit and respected as much as the Broncos.

• Seattle's D was 1/1/1 in yards points and turnovers.
• They were best in yards per play and passer rating (by 10 points)
• They had their own nickname
• They had Beast Mode
• They had a young superstar dual threat QB with 100+ rating seasons in both years in the league.

The unwashed betting masses thought Broncos big but there was real debate from people who understood that defense.

Using ESPN as an example because its easy to find their historical pages:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10373906/super-bowl-xlviii-predictions-espn-staff-picks-big-game

Edited January 3, 2021 by SkippyX

[BayRaider]

7 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

The Seahawks were legit and respected as much as the Broncos.

• Seattle's D was 1/1/1 in yards points and turnovers.
• They were best in yards per play and passer rating (by 10 points)
• They had their own nickname
• They had Beast Mode
• They had a young superstar dual threat QB with 100+ rating seasons in both years in the league.

The unwashed betting masses thought Broncos big but there was real debate from people who understood that defense.

Using ESPN as an example because its easy to find their historical pages:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10373906/super-bowl-xlviii-predictions-espn-staff-picks-big-game

Yep, I bet on the Seahawks on that game, even though I wanted to see Manning win. Only SB's I've gotten wrong the past decade are both Niners, and Falcons.

[lancerman]

4 hours ago, SkippyX said:

The Seahawks were legit and respected as much as the Broncos.

• Seattle's D was 1/1/1 in yards points and turnovers.
• They were best in yards per play and passer rating (by 10 points)
• They had their own nickname
• They had Beast Mode
• They had a young superstar dual threat QB with 100+ rating seasons in both years in the league.

The unwashed betting masses thought Broncos big but there was real debate from people who understood that defense.

Using ESPN as an example because its easy to find their historical pages:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10373906/super-bowl-xlviii-predictions-espn-staff-picks-big-game

Yes the Seahawks were respected, but the Broncos were a record breaking offense that would have gone down as arguably the greatest offense ever had they not got smoked in that game.LikeI said, Denver were the betting favorites. Nowbody expected them to nearly get shut out (for all intents and purposes they might as well of). 

[FinSting]

10 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

The Chiefs were a bad match-up for the Vikings. I heard that the Raiders would have been a better one.

Hard to believe the Vikings didn't design a defense to prevent the Chiefs from matriculating the ball down the field. Huge oversight. 

[candyman93]

23 hours ago, kramxel said:

Besides the 2013 Broncos, I've always felt that the Bears against the Colts were a particularly flat performance in recent years. 

 

 

It was a competitive game too until the 4th quarter.

 

Rex Grossman has to be the worst QB to ever start a super bowl. Bears win that if you put just an average Andy Dalton type of QB back there.

[biggie.]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:34 AM, kramxel said:

Besides the 2013 Broncos, I've always felt that the Bears against the Colts were a particularly flat performance in recent years. 

 

 

Chicago's defense kept them in until the very end. If you replaced Grossman with an even remotely functional QB, Chicago would have very well won that game.

[ThatJerkDave]

On 1/1/2021 at 7:25 PM, SkippyX said:

I eliminate teams like the 2000 Giants, 1985 Patriots, and the 2002 Raiders because they would get killed 20 times out of 20 so it was not that day's performance.

Interesting perspective.  Probably need to add the 94 Chargers to that list.  Final score was 49-26, and it wasn't that close.  

 

I always thought that the 95 Steelers were better than what they showed in the Super Bowl.  Maybe the Cowboys were just too good?  I was only 13 at the time, so maybe I didn't have the greatest perspective.  

 

 

[rich homie]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:34 AM, kramxel said:

Besides the 2013 Broncos, I've always felt that the Bears against the Colts were a particularly flat performance in recent years. 

 

 

That's the best example of why the Super Bowl should always be held in a dome.

[3rivers]

On 1/1/2021 at 3:57 PM, notthatbluestuff said:

You could point to a lot of blowouts but I have to wonder if those results weren't exactly unexpected in many cases. A lot of those times, the losing side was very clearly overmatched and weren't expected to win - is that fair to say? You could point to stuff like 2018 Rams, but at least they played really well defensively. With all this in mind, I have to nominate the 2013 Broncos. That was just total domination by Seattle, and it certainly didn't seem like it was going to happen beforehand. 

What say you?

I haven't seen all of them, and some I have seen recently, but not when they happened.  

When Denver got destroyed by the 49ers, they never changed their defence at all and Elway was terrible in that game.  To say they "just showed up" would be a way of putting it, no adjustments and they weren't ready at all.  49ers were a great team, but that opponent wasn't. 

2013 Broncos would be up there, they could at least got some more offence especially considering their regular season.  

2000 Giants would have been shut out if not for a ST play. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by 3rivers

[Saint_James]

2018 Rams, hands down.

It's bad enough they outright cheated my Saints to get to the Super Bowl.  But they got the absolute WORST game ever in a Super Bowl by Brady and company, and still couldn't get the job done.   It was never made more clearly that they simply did not belong in that game.

Seriously, Tom Brady was dumpster juice that game and the Rams still couldn't do ****.   As a Saints fan and Patriots hater, it was double torture watching that game.  You just KNEW Drew Brees and gang would have easily got the win.  

Now I'm sure there are other historic blowouts one could point to in Super Bowls, but 2018 Rams was the first thing that came to my mind.   It was just SUCH a bad game.  I mean, at least blowouts have a well executed offense or something to make it watchable.   This game had nothing.

[childofpudding]

On 1/3/2021 at 3:55 AM, SkippyX said:

The Seahawks were legit and respected as much as the Broncos.

• Seattle's D was 1/1/1 in yards points and turnovers.
• They were best in yards per play and passer rating (by 10 points)
• They had their own nickname
• They had Beast Mode
• They had a young superstar dual threat QB with 100+ rating seasons in both years in the league.

The unwashed betting masses thought Broncos big but there was real debate from people who understood that defense.

Using ESPN as an example because its easy to find their historical pages:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10373906/super-bowl-xlviii-predictions-espn-staff-picks-big-game

Yeah, it's revisionist history to pretend that everyone thought the Broncos would win. The shocker, of course, was how much of a blowout it was. I think most people thought it would be close, but Seattle just dominated in all phases.

I think if you're measuring against expectations, 2013 Broncos is #1. If you're just looking at straight-up bad performances, the 1985 Patriots is definitely right up there as well.

Edited January 4, 2021 by childofpudding