Skip to content

NFL Network drops the ball with Super Bowl I re-broadcast

Football: Super Bowl I: Kansas City Chiefs Mike Garrett (21) in action, rushing as Green Bay Packers Willie Davis (87) looks on during game at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. 
Los Angeles, CA 1/15/1967
CREDIT: Neil Leifer (Photo by Neil Leifer /Sports Illustrated/Getty Images)
(Set Number: X12152 ) Getty Images

When the NFL Films announced that it had cobbled together every play of Super Bowl I, and that NFL Network would show the game in its entirety, it sounded like a landmark achievement in sports broadcasting: The full recording of Super Bowl I was previously thought lost to history, and Friday night’s re-airing would be a historic moment.

Instead, it was a major disappointment.

Although NFL Network did, in fact, show every play of Super Bowl I, its presentation fell far short of a full re-broadcast of the game. NFL Media had said the game would feature the original radio call of Jim Simpson, who passed away this week at the age of 88, but what NFL Network mostly showed was its own analysts, in their familiar Los Angeles studio, talking over the game. The commentary wasn’t particularly interesting, didn’t offer much historical insight or actual analysis of the game, and served only to detract from what should have been a big event for NFL Network.

Perhaps NFL Media thought it needed that kind of filler content because the NFL Films footage didn’t include all the moments between plays. Maybe it would have seemed jarring to viewers if the broadcast had been full of stops and starts. But even if thats the case, the filler content could have been so much better. The good stuff — like an interview with Len Dawson, the Chiefs’ quarterback in Super Bowl I — was far too brief. And the bad stuff — like the Los Angeles studio commentators informing us that The Beatles and The Monkees were the top musical acts in January of 1967, when Super Bowl I was played — went on way too long. I could listen to Len Dawson talk about Super Bowl I for three hours, but I don’t want to listen to NFL Network analysts who had no connection to Super Bowl I talk for three hours.

The best thing I can say for the NFL Network broadcast is that it could be fixed, if NFL Media is willing. The network could air Super Bowl I again and include only sound from the participants — actually letting us hear Simpson’s original radio broadcast, and filling in holes with better features, like NFL Films audio of coaches Vince Lombardi and Hank Stram. A re-airing of Super Bowl I could be a great broadcasting achievement, but NFL Network needs to do it right.

Permalink 154 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Features, Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
154 Responses to “NFL Network drops the ball with Super Bowl I re-broadcast”
  1. livenbreathefootball says: Jan 16, 2016 10:34 AM

    I thought it was just me. Too much talk, not enough play. Dawson talking was great. Mariucci analyzing the plays was good. Everything else was a distraction.

  2. mjs2012 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:35 AM

    Guess they should have actually paid the 1 million dollars to the guy who has the copy after all.

  3. bestinafcnorth says: Jan 16, 2016 10:35 AM

    It was mostly disappointing. Only cool part was seeing a few of the old dudes that played in the game. Jerry Kramers impersonation of The Hammer was high point of show.

  4. dirtmcgirt24 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:37 AM

    Early NFL Network used to show actual historic NFL games. And it was awesome.

    Now we get reruns of nobody studio analysts and fantasy football “experts” 24 hours a day.

    It’s a shame how they killed the best network on television.

  5. seahawks80 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:37 AM

    MDS, I totally agree, it was very disappointing. Although I was not born when this game was played I was totally looking forward to watching this game. I cut it off before halftime.

  6. nickprzy2 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:38 AM

    It was terrible, I was expecting something totally different

  7. keepounding1234 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:38 AM

    I agree. I was looking forward to it and turned it off after about five minutes.

  8. aircoryell says: Jan 16, 2016 10:39 AM

    Spot on. Was really looking forward to this. Couldn’t wait to get home to the DVR. Major disappointment. Ended up fast forwarding through most of it.

  9. keylimelight says: Jan 16, 2016 10:39 AM

    “The commentary wasn’t particularly interesting, didn’t offer much historical insight or actual analysis of the game, and served only to detract from what should have been a big event for NFL Network.”
    _______________________

    This is what they do every Sunday for every game.

    They talk talk talk while the game is going on often what they are saying is not descriptive of what’s actually happening on the field.

    It’s like trying to watch a football game with someone who is not interested in the game. Just yap yap yap. Grrrrrrrrr.

  10. wte1 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:39 AM

    I didn’t watch it. I was watching the Celtics win and the Bruins win and today I will watch the Patriots win.

    #GoPats!

  11. wmnf says: Jan 16, 2016 10:40 AM

    It was awful, no continuity with the actual game footage.

    Wasn’t that what fans tuned in for?

  12. str82dvd says: Jan 16, 2016 10:40 AM

    The NFL Network has like 1 or 2 actual professional broadcasters.

  13. gbbvan says: Jan 16, 2016 10:40 AM

    NFLN totally hosed the opportunity!

    Even some of Lombardi’s sideline rants were taken from other games.

  14. eojtrid says: Jan 16, 2016 10:41 AM

    Glad you brought this up. Agree 100 % what a true buzz kill. Maybe some commentary between the quarters and after the game is over, but other than that SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

  15. dirtmcgirt24 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:42 AM

    70% of NFL players go broke after their careers.

    But instead of hearing their valuble insight and great stories on a network dedicated to the game, Amber Theoharis and Lindsay Rhoades and Andrew Siciliano have all the jobs. And they never go away!

  16. lscottman3 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:44 AM

    When they hAd the hammer in the studio why didn’t they ask him about getting injured,?
    It was poorly done

  17. runningoutofboundsisforgringos says: Jan 16, 2016 10:44 AM

    Agreed. Not as advertised

  18. lemmetalkwouldya says: Jan 16, 2016 10:45 AM

    Fire the hack who produced this turd.

  19. rportkid says: Jan 16, 2016 10:46 AM

    What would you expect? The NFL doesn’t manage anything well. Bunch of dishonest clowns running the show.

  20. pawpaw46 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:46 AM

    NFL Network blows

  21. TheDPR says: Jan 16, 2016 10:47 AM

    Television sports media doesn’t know or care what sports fans would prefer to watch. They seek out a lower common denominator with a broader audience to sell to advertisers. Real sports fans are taken for granted while sports media endeavors to pull in the entertainment-based audience.

  22. Wisconsin's Favorite Son Jeffrey Be Dahmed says: Jan 16, 2016 10:47 AM

    I agree. The broadcast could’ve been so much better. It was totally out of character. The Packers didn’t choke.

  23. fordmandalay says: Jan 16, 2016 10:48 AM

    I agree 100%. Was really looking forward to seeing and hearing the game, was treated to blathering buffoons who wouldn’t shut up for 2 hours.

  24. rajbais says: Jan 16, 2016 10:49 AM

    Hello, ‘A Football Life’ had its worst season despite good episodes about Bruce Arians, Alan Page, and Paul Brown.

    This network will be going out of business like Al Jazeera America.

  25. ttommytom says: Jan 16, 2016 10:50 AM

    Horror show.

  26. cowboylover says: Jan 16, 2016 10:50 AM

    I felt as though I was watching Mystery Science Theater 3000.

  27. dawiz2008 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:51 AM

    Should’ve paid the guy who actually has film of it clowns. Even if its missing most of the third quarter it would’ve been way better than what you guys tried to feed us.

  28. cazspaz says: Jan 16, 2016 10:51 AM

    It was terrible. At some point these networks will realize that we don’t tune in to hear them yak or give their idiotic “analysis”. If you say you’re going to broadcast a game, then do so. Otherwise, shut up.

  29. keepounding1234 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:51 AM

    mjs2012 says:
    Jan 16, 2016 10:35 AM
    Guess they should have actually paid the 1 million dollars to the guy who has the copy after all.
    _________________________________________
    Someone actually has the entire broadcast? I didn’t know that. It’s hard to get a feel for a game without watching the between play commentary and sideline shots. With all the money they have if they walked away from a full copy I’m actully pretty disgusted.

  30. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:52 AM

    The idiots in the studio now are horrendous. Sports “analysis” has now become 50% bad attempts at humor with everyone on the set laughing at nothing funny, 40% fluff and maybe 10% actual football talk on a good day.

    The goal of these people is to make the games and sport about the people babbling in the studio, not the actual games themselves.

    Roger Goodell’s National Integrity League

    Goodell is Vile

    Goodell must go

  31. Florio Believer says: Jan 16, 2016 10:52 AM

    Yup, and lets be honest here folks, the 1st Super Bowl was actually a pretty non-eventful game. I was 16 at the time and I remember switching back and forth between the 2 Networks and the game was pretty boring, then throwing a football around for part of the game.

    It was really a bummer as I’d come to really enjoy the AFL and how wide open the Offense was.

    Oh well….

  32. the8man says: Jan 16, 2016 10:53 AM

    I watched the last five minutes of the third quarter and despite the compelling video, I couldn’t get past the split screen and the incessant talking of the analysts.

    Why the network didn’t believe the replay could stand on it’s own is beyond me. It was self serving, annoying and hideous.

  33. cyberbucs says: Jan 16, 2016 10:53 AM

    Really ruined the experience. Too much talking!

  34. Cunning Linguist says: Jan 16, 2016 10:54 AM

    NFL Films, which gets nearly everything right, dropped the ball on this one. I too was excited for this one and watched most of the first half before the in-studio “analysis” became too much for me. I agree that NFL Films should re-broadcast with interviews/commentary from game participants when appropriate as well as letting us hear the Jim Simpson play-by-play.

  35. fivetwos says: Jan 16, 2016 10:54 AM

    I hear you MDS.

    I tuned in figuring it would be something cool to check out.

    I found it ridiculous the way they presented it. I was so disappointed I turned it off.

  36. truthfactory says: Jan 16, 2016 10:55 AM

    Early NFL Network used to show actual historic NFL games. And it was awesome.

    Now we get reruns of nobody studio analysts and fantasy football “experts” 24 hours a day.

    It’s a shame how they killed the best network on television.
    ———

    I think they actually get ratings on their programming. It’s a pretty simple equation… If more people watched the old programming you referenced, that is what would be on air right now. If more people are watching the new programming, then that is what will be on air.

    Advertisers don’t care if a small portion of the population really enjoys niche programing that appeals to a few. All programing is designed to appeal to the masses now a days… like it or not.

  37. filthymcnasty3 says: Jan 16, 2016 10:56 AM

    Man, those were simpler times, when the NFL (NFC) was expected to easily win the big one, behind the greatest players and most storied franchises in NFL history. Lombardi’s Packer dynasty truly signaled the end of an era.

    Then came the great Joe Namath. A year later that loser Bud Grant and the hapless and tasteless Vikings showed up. They lost all 4 big ones to their AFC counterparts.

    Parity. Shanks a lot, Vikings.

  38. gregbeau says: Jan 16, 2016 10:56 AM

    It was not very good, though I did enjoy hearing from Garrett, Williamson (still a jerk after all these years), Davis and Dawson. For what it cost to do that production they could have just bought the videotape of the original CBS broadcast that is in the Paley Center from the guy that owns it. It does seem odd that they had a little bit of the original broadcast on tape, apparently just the introductions.

  39. openfieldtackle says: Jan 16, 2016 10:56 AM

    I lasted 15 minutes and turned it off. Protect your brand and do it right or don’t do it at all.

  40. dakotapackerfan says: Jan 16, 2016 10:58 AM

    It was like watching a sitcom “clips” episode. Disjointed, none of the drama of the original, with no feel for how it was to watch it the first time. No sense of the time period. Could have just watched a highlight reel and gotten the same effect.

    The game was secondary to the talking heads.

    Not what I tuned in to see.

  41. gopackgocausecowboysblow says: Jan 16, 2016 10:59 AM

    I agree. The broadcast could’ve been so much better. It was totally out of character. The Packers didn’t choke.

    So close to making it through the comments without some inane statement from a Vikings fan. So Close……

  42. qbarrel says: Jan 16, 2016 10:59 AM

    I was so looking forward to this. What a disappointment. I watched about 10 mins and realized that this is all there is – a bunch of talking heads talking over a bunch of cobbled-together NFL Films clips. And why did they run all the footage in slow motion? Couldn’t they have run it at actual game speed? The NFL created way too much hype around something so lame. Oh well, I’ve been meaning to cancel my subscription anyway.

  43. bricketh says: Jan 16, 2016 10:59 AM

    I started watching it, and they annoyed me so much that I ended up muting the TV, and even with that, the constant window of the studio in the corner was so distracting, I ended up turning it off. I did record it, but will likely remove it without watching anymore, because it was totally unwatchable. Huge fail for NFLN…

  44. hogbuster7 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:00 AM

    The broadcast was poorly done. I would rather have seen the entire broadcast without any commentary. The Hammer wasn’t just arrogant he came across as downright disrespectful in his interview. It was kind of funny to hear him talk about how slow the Packers receivers were then watch his secondary get torched by a hungover 35 year old lead foot Max McGee who had 4 catches all year. I know it’s a long shot but it would be pretty neat if you get a Chiefs – Packers matchup for Super Bowl 50.

  45. fantastic37 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:00 AM

    Agree 100%. Watched for 20 minutes and turned it off. What a disservice to such a historic sports event. Get Al Michaels and Mike Mayock to narrate the game

  46. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Jan 16, 2016 11:01 AM

    Had it sitting in the DVR waiting for a time I could really enjoy it. Read this and put it on to see just how bad it is. What a disappointing cluster—-.

  47. mark1021 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:02 AM

    The way the Hammer insulted the Packers’ receivers in SB I, you’d think KC had won the game 35-10 instead of GB. He was an embarrassment commenting on the game. Mike Garrett came across as classy in that segment.

    One of the great moments in SB I was when the “Hammer” got hammered and carried off of the field. The Packer sideline laughing at Williamson wasn’t so much about the injury itself, but at the Hammer’s pre-game boasting about taking out Packer players.

  48. tonebones says: Jan 16, 2016 11:02 AM

    Not a bit surprised. I hate NFL Network. I’ve watched ESPN’s draft coverage for years, but just last year I decided to watch the coverage on NFL Network. I’ll never do that again. They are the absolute worst. Their “experts” have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. The NFL is as good as ever, but their Network needs a housecleaning.

  49. artie3boys says: Jan 16, 2016 11:03 AM

    Totally agree with the column. Was really looking forward to just watching the game, and the NFLN people were just in the way.

  50. sbaltimore says: Jan 16, 2016 11:04 AM

    I agree 100%. It was very disappointing and very poorly done. As mjs2012 said…they should have simply paid the guy the $1M for the REAL complete tape and spruced it up a bit.

  51. jbaxt says: Jan 16, 2016 11:04 AM

    Lynn Dawson still does Chiefs radio for their games and he’s very good. Very intelligent and provides great insight. More than anyone on the NFL network could offer. They should get him and anyone else over 60 to do it. Loved when they tried to bait Dawson into calling out the Packers when asked about the supposed AFC inferiority. He says guys; we played against all those guys in college, we knew them and they knew us, so the players respected each other, it was the business of competing brands that was the dispute. That’s the insight in interested in. People make it sound like the AFL was a bunch of NAIA rejects/replacements.

    When they showed pics of Mooch and asked about his music preferences of the 60’s I was confused and disappointed.

  52. tremoluxman says: Jan 16, 2016 11:04 AM

    Broadcasters’ biggest fear is ‘dead air’. They think that if they don’t fill every second will some sort of inane chatter, viewers will hit the ‘Off’ switch. Wrong. We want to see the game they way it was originally presented. Yes, intersperse comments and observations by the original participants, but leave the other self-important bozos out. We see and hear enough of these blowhards on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

  53. ad28bestever says: Jan 16, 2016 11:04 AM

    It was a bore fest anyways. GB was favored way back then as well. Then their “fans” act like they were on the field playing with them. Then when the Packers sucked for over 2 decades, Green Bay was a ghost town (yes, I live in Green Bay so I would know) yet they claim to be the “best” fans in the NFL.

    They didn’t get back on the bandwagon until Favre came into the mix and played well. This city, and the GB fans are everything they claim other fans are, bandwagon jumping, and fair weather.

  54. nothingman says: Jan 16, 2016 11:05 AM

    I thought I had missed it, because I went to NFL Network and saw talking heads going on & on with a window graphic over their shoulders showing black & white game footage. I figured it was post-game chatter..

    THAT was the actual broadcast??

  55. longtimefanh8tr says: Jan 16, 2016 11:05 AM

    It was awful. The yackers got in the way of the game. Trying to watch the play and their constant drumbeat of nonsense was awful! I turned it off.

  56. xpensivewinos says: Jan 16, 2016 11:10 AM

    The entire thing was absolutely pathetic.

    If they were going to have a panel/viewing party, why didn’t it consist of people who played or were connected to the game?

    One of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen on television. It was obvious that the people involved weren’t even comfortable. They didn’t really know when to talk and when to shut up.

    Mystery Science Theatre is the The Wire compared to that steaming pile the NFL Network cooked up…..

  57. clayshair says: Jan 16, 2016 11:11 AM

    Why not have round table of guys who played in the game?! They could have had the packer and chief players talking to each other about game. They had Len Dawson on for 30 sec then back to hosts who weren’t even born when the game was played. I thought we were going to see new footage of Lombardi but they spliced in the same clips we’ve seen a thousand times from other games – then they talked over almost entire game – this was so disappointing, not at all what I was expecting

  58. whatjusthapped says: Jan 16, 2016 11:11 AM

    It was god awful. Worse yet, you have the former KC Chief players on the set talking about how they played a much tougher team the previous week. Sour grapes is still poor sportsmanship 50 years later. If they were so good, how come the score wasn’t closer?

  59. j0esixpack says: Jan 16, 2016 11:11 AM

    This is a Goodell PR ploy to make people wax poetic about football before anyone cared about concussions

    He failed

  60. babyjunkie says: Jan 16, 2016 11:13 AM

    Epic fail!

  61. usa98j30t4 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:15 AM

    The Ginger Hammer is the Rich Kotite of commissioners.

    #pathetic

  62. davikes says: Jan 16, 2016 11:15 AM

    They should re-air it on a broadcast network INSTEAD OF THE PRO BOWL. Every year. Next year air SB II, etc. Much more interesting, if they do it right.

  63. wiitrainingcamp says: Jan 16, 2016 11:16 AM

    Agree 100%. I tuned in expecting to watch the original broadcast. When I realized it was talking heads yapping over the broadcast I flipped it off. Horribly disappointing.

  64. grogansheroes says: Jan 16, 2016 11:17 AM

    I agree with most people here. I turned it off after about ten minutes when I realized it was just a yak fest. I was also looking forward to seeing the story of the AFL-NFL merger, and they royally fudged that up also.

  65. qbarrel says: Jan 16, 2016 11:17 AM

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say that this was a last-minute cob-job – like somebody at NFLN came up with the idea over lunch a few weeks ago and they gave the task to an intern to sift through and piece-together the footage.

    Then maybe they made a few 11th-hour phone calls to get a couple SBI guests in the studio.

    The way they presented it, they made it sound like it was years in the making. However the final product betrays that notion.

  66. h0metownzero says: Jan 16, 2016 11:19 AM

    It was fun watching Max McGee give birth to the Packers “next man up” championship pedigree.

  67. jimrip says: Jan 16, 2016 11:23 AM

    A total travesty.. the whole time I was yelling “Would you please SHUT UP and let me hear Jim call the action???”

  68. jschmus says: Jan 16, 2016 11:25 AM

    I thought I was the only one. Terrible job

  69. filthymcnasty3 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:26 AM

    Nearly half a century later, the spectacle of this historic rebroadcast is a gentle reminder to every football fan that Championships are the gift that keeps on giving.

    Green Bay will forever be Titletown. And the games highest honor will always be named after it’s greatest coach.

  70. matterson20 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:26 AM

    I blame Goodell.

  71. kingpel says: Jan 16, 2016 11:27 AM

    At the risk of sounding like the old man I swore I would never become, broadcast teams today have no character. They are all cookie cutter and everything about the broadcast is generic. And can we stop with the snarky joking all the time?

  72. kingpel says: Jan 16, 2016 11:29 AM

    This was the NFL equivalent of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

  73. thebirdofprey says: Jan 16, 2016 11:30 AM

    NFL Network should be so much better than what it is. They have the most access to players, footage and produce so much absolute nonsense.

    I couldn’t even watch this game because they had 8 guys on set talking while I was trying to listen to the broadcast of the game.

    Michael Irvin is probably one of the least prepared people I have watched on TV. Deon Sanders is one of those clowns that always want to prove how “hood he is”. They cut in depth programming like “Playbook” with the All 22 film to show a bunch of regular guys playing Madden against each other trash talking? That is an actual show.

  74. 1standinches says: Jan 16, 2016 11:31 AM

    They dropped the ball?.. Is that ruled incomplete or a fumble?

  75. pipnarsky says: Jan 16, 2016 11:31 AM

    The only part that was any good was the player introductions which were clearly from the original tv broadcast.

  76. ghostofgilchrist says: Jan 16, 2016 11:36 AM

    The Sabol’s are greatly missed…

  77. h0metownzero says: Jan 16, 2016 11:36 AM

    It was during the 2nd half of this very game that the late, great Bud Grant first uttered his most memorable all time quote, saying “Viking fans are small people (figuratively), living small lives, beneath the giant shadow of the Green Bay Packers.”

  78. 26predator says: Jan 16, 2016 11:37 AM

    That. Was. Awful.

    Just replay what you have in its entirety, and use subtitles. They do the exact same thing on the games they replay and it’s fine.

  79. Mr. Wright 212 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:37 AM

    ad28bestever says:
    Jan 16, 2016 11:04 AM
    It was a bore fest anyways. GB was favored way back then as well. Then their “fans” act like they were on the field playing with them. Then when the Packers sucked for over 2 decades, Green Bay was a ghost town (yes, I live in Green Bay so I would know) yet they claim to be the “best” fans in the NFL.

    They didn’t get back on the bandwagon until Favre came into the mix and played well. This city, and the GB fans are everything they claim other fans are, bandwagon jumping, and fair weather.
    ——-
    I usually don’t rip on the Pack, as I am a Giants fan and have no beef with them, but this is a true fact.

    When I was coming up, Green Bay was a perpetual laughingstock and there were more Giants fans there than Packer fans when we went up there in the mid 80s. Only two winning seasons total in the 25 years between Lombardi leaving and Favre becoming the starter? And everyone else is a bandwagon fan to them?

    Even the Giants drought from the mid 60s until Parcells turned them around wasn’t that long of a stretch without at least two winning seasons total.

  80. colonelkevin says: Jan 16, 2016 11:40 AM

    Couldn’t agree more with this column. I don’t know that I’ve ever gone from being so excited to so disappointed with a television broadcast when I realized they were just going to talk over the game the whole time.

    Definitely a perfect example of how to completely ruin a program by doing too much…

  81. thegreenandcold says: Jan 16, 2016 11:43 AM

    Wisconsin’s Favorite Son Jeffrey Be Dahmed says:Jan 16, 2016 10:47 AM

    I agree. The broadcast could’ve been so much better. It was totally out of character. The Packers didn’t choke.
    ————————-
    This is a Vikings fan. Hawking over the refresh key until a new Packer article shows up. Skim the title. Fit a sentence to try and bring down the Packers.

    Since the historical win in Superbowl I had me on a high note, let’s talk about the Historic Minnesota Vikings.

    The Vikings:
    Have the worst playoff record of any NFL team.
    Have the worst Superbowl record of any NFL team.
    This season:
    They caved and paid extra money to a child abuser to improve their team.
    They went one and done in the playoffs to the lowest seeded team.
    Played this season at a college stadium.

    As for the game, it was nice hearing Mooch’s view of what it was like being a fan of the Packers at the time. One Chief should never have been brought on. He attacked every member that was brought up, if they were a Packer they were overrated, if they were a Chief, they didn’t play up to expectations. Mike Garrett was a welcome addition. One if the classiest human beings I’ve witnessed. His commentary and Mooch’s were the only welcome voices.

  82. freddsox says: Jan 16, 2016 11:44 AM

    Tuned in late and thought ‘oh I’m not late it’s just pre-broadcast hype. Five minutes later when I realized this was is it turned it off. I want to remember Super Bowl 1 as the grainy highlights of Max McGee running with his hangover not Mooch blabbing on about things he never did or could do

  83. mattcro0172 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:44 AM

    Agree, show the game, have analysis at the quarters. Not at the same time. Also, 99% of the shots were slow mo NFL films so you got no feel for the speed of the game. Epic overhype

  84. razzlejag says: Jan 16, 2016 11:44 AM

    I, too, was disappointed. In no particular order:
    1. Mooch was a GB fan growing up. I got it the first 4 times he said it.
    2. The audio in the background distracted from the commentary in the studio.
    3. The commentary was mostly useless, ha-ha stuff.
    4. I disagree with most- I thought The Hammer was great.
    5. I agree with Mike Garrett- they should have shown the commercials too.
    6. More crowd shots would be cool. Women’s hairstyles were cool.
    7. Terrell Davis deserves a lifetime ban for taking money under the table, not a gig on TV
    8. More Len Dawson
    9. When I saw 7 guys sitting in a half circle, I knew it was ha-ha time

  85. yb1956 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:45 AM

    I was going to watch the next time it aired, but after reading these comments, I’ll pass.

  86. terriblefootball says: Jan 16, 2016 11:45 AM

    Wish the Beatles and Monkees were still the top musical acts of today.

  87. pkrlvr says: Jan 16, 2016 11:46 AM

    It was a bore fest anyways. GB was favored way back then as well. Then their “fans” act like they were on the field playing with them. Then when the Packers sucked for over 2 decades, Green Bay was a ghost town (yes, I live in Green Bay so I would know) yet they claim to be the “best” fans in the NFL.

    They didn’t get back on the bandwagon until Favre came into the mix and played well. This city, and the GB fans are everything they claim other fans are, bandwagon jumping, and fair weather.
    ————-
    Having grown up in GB during the time you are talking about I can confidently say everything you just said is crap.

  88. hap15 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:46 AM

    I agree TOTALLY. Thank you. I don’t need to hear Steve Mariucci and that cast blab. On the other hand, Len Dawson was fantastic and Mike Garrett is a gracious man and demonstrated that he is a first class individual. Re-broadcast as suggested and let me hear more of the fantastic Jim Simpson.

  89. curtj5 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:51 AM

    Let me take a wild guess, the NFL is pinching pennies and thats why they have annoying commentators.

  90. williamannand says: Jan 16, 2016 11:51 AM

    Apparently this schlock attracts viewers — talking heads siting on sofas, ESPN-style Punch and Judy shows, pre-game snoozefests twice as long as the game that follows them. It’s a shame.

  91. glac1 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:51 AM

    Agree. The last thing I wanted was to hear today’s analysts…

  92. mbg8977 says: Jan 16, 2016 11:52 AM

    I was very disappointed in this presentation. I was also hoping it would be a true re-broadcast of the game. Didn’t need a group of panelists talking about it during the game. They should have had this panel after the game and it could have been a two hour broadcast.

    NFL Media ego.

  93. Bill's got balls! says: Jan 16, 2016 11:53 AM

    h0metownzero says:
    Jan 16, 2016 11:36 AM
    It was during the 2nd half of this very game that the late, great Bud Grant first uttered his most memorable all time quote….

    Uhh, pretty sure I saw Bud Grant out for the coin toss in a golf shirt at the Seattle/Minnesota game in Minneapolis last week. Just sayin’, but I think he’s still alive and doing well.

  94. staffordsyear says: Jan 16, 2016 11:54 AM

    I don’t have cable but I can just about imagine how bad it was considering the NFL Network is nothing but a bunch of jackmonkeys who try to play “analyst” on tv.

  95. connormyboy says: Jan 16, 2016 11:55 AM

    As soon as they showed that guest panel that was the end of that. There was no way it was no way it was going to be broadcast they way it was supposed.

  96. h0metownzero says: Jan 16, 2016 12:00 PM

    I think the Chiefs deserve a rematch.

    This year.

  97. elvoid says: Jan 16, 2016 12:01 PM

    Agreed. Let’s hope someone at NFL Network reads your opinion here and a light bulb goes off. Hell, they ought to hire you to produce the damn thing – you’ve got it right.

  98. izzysydbas says: Jan 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    This was so disappointing. I would have so much more enjoyed listening to the “golden tones” of the, sadly, now late Jim Simpson instead of the clowns in the studio. They were more interested in making fun of how people dressed and acted 50 years ago than they were allowing us to enjoy the replay. They acted shocked that people in the stands were wearing coats and ties and seemed amazed that NFL players from 50 years ago could actually run, block, and pass even though the game was loaded with future Hall of Fame players. I think they were also disappointed that the players didn’t do a dance after every tackle like they do now and “oh my gosh” they caught Len Dawson smoking a cigarette in the locker room at halftime. Actually I’ll bet there were many players who did that back then.

    Disappointing. Please show it again but leave the “we are too hip to care about stuff 50 years old” people at home.

  99. chawk12thman says: Jan 16, 2016 12:07 PM

    Very disappointed and not sure how the NFL Network could actually think they did a good job. I was mad during the entire presentation that the “analysts” kept talking and the focus was on them and not the game. I wanted to see just the original broadcast using original audio, like was promoted. If the flow is not quite the same that we expect from a game being broadcast now; so what……we were expecting that.

    I have to admit I was impressed with the game plays themselves and the quality of the old broadcast……

    I hope they play it in the original format in the near future………

  100. kaepernickin says: Jan 16, 2016 12:12 PM

    It was almost as bad as watching a game commentated by Chris Collinsworth! A lot of worthless commentary taking away from the football being played! BUT I don’t expect much better, at least it wasn’t Ray Lewis

  101. stoneygroove says: Jan 16, 2016 12:12 PM

    I didn’t watch it. I was watching the Celtics win and the Bruins win and today I will watch the Patriots win.

    #GoPats!
    ______________________________________
    And then you wonder.

  102. arktikman says: Jan 16, 2016 12:13 PM

    Here is a thought. Air the game as originally broadcast and insert pop-up video bubbles for info tidbits.

    You can also air it without, but broadcast it later for the diehards.

  103. Mo Pro Babble says: Jan 16, 2016 12:16 PM

    h0metownzero says:
    Jan 16, 2016 11:19 AM
    It was fun watching Max McGee give birth to the Packers “next man up” championship pedigree

    Max wasn’t next man up, he was old former starter now half in the bag because he snuck out after curfew man up.

    How bad was KC that they let an old alky beat them that badly? I remember in “Instant Replay” Kramer talks about how KC folded early when they realized they had no chance as opposed to Oakland who kept it going until the end even when they knew it was over.

  104. whodatnhollywood says: Jan 16, 2016 12:16 PM

    The NFL Network PIMPED Super Bowl I! That show was all about their people. Not the game. They exploited the game to highlight their own folk! (And this is coming from one of their former editors, as I used to work there.)

    I watched for about 5 minutes then turned the channel to local news to see the Rams’s rally here in Inglewood.

    They can redeem themselves and show it without comments. Even if they edited it together into a condensed, 1-hour program, that would be better. At least we can SEE THE GAME!!! In fact, I’ll edit it for them! For free. Let’s just see what all this hype is about.

  105. rankster1950 says: Jan 16, 2016 12:20 PM

    For what it’s worth, I agree completely. I just wanted it to be like 1967 when I watched this as a sixteen year old. All we got was incessant idle chatter from these guys. Would have loved to hear the actual play by play. NFL blew it. Was getting into a football life bout Bruce arians when they broke in to the story for bout 20 when the giants coaching decision was made. So I tuned in to the AHC. These guys really loved to hear themselves babble bout a game they never watched.

  106. cinzano08 says: Jan 16, 2016 12:21 PM

    Just show the game for c sakes. Enough with the incessant talking heads. One thing I noticed was the lack of penalty flags.

  107. rankster1950 says: Jan 16, 2016 12:23 PM

    Hell, maybe max was in the bag when he flipped off that roof.

  108. seahawksbmx says: Jan 16, 2016 12:29 PM

    I recorded it & haven’t watched it yet (not sure I even will now). I went out to dinner at a place that had it on without sound and I wasn’t liking what I was seeing with the split screen and apparent studio commentary.
    Yeah, why do that? Show the actual footage in full screen and maybe have a few minutes of commentary in-between quarters. Nice to see them be called out for their blunder.

  109. Kapodaco says: Jan 16, 2016 12:38 PM

    Tweeted about this yesterday. It was incredibly underwhelming and surprisingly short. Altogether, the whole Super Bowl being broadcasted was about an hour and a half, with the other half being people talking either over it or about it. I liked the informational tidbits about the game and the conversations with the players who played in the game, but a lot of the screen was cluttered with useless junk and analysts talking over the action. The one funny moment came from Mariucci going “Whoa!” after a random, attractive woman flashed on the screen for a second.

    I wouldn’t watch a Super Bowl II re-broadcast if they showed it the same way they did with Super Bowl I. Too much modern input on a classic game. Not to mention the constant “Feel old yet?!” reminders scattered throughout.

  110. mnfaninil says: Jan 16, 2016 12:38 PM

    I quit watching after getting frustrated with the talking heads in the studio. I was expecting to see a bunch of slow, undersized part time football players, but was surprised as they looked physical and well coached.

    Loved how the coaches and fans alike wore ties.

  111. theageofquarrel says: Jan 16, 2016 12:39 PM

    I watched about a half an hour of it before I turned it off because those clowns wouldn’t shut up

  112. mccarthyisamoron says: Jan 16, 2016 12:40 PM

    What, no shaky-cam? This the tip-of-the-iceburg as interns/producers steeped in hyper social media fodder come up through the TV ranks.
    Mooch was great and the SB I players were essential.

  113. jayhawk6 says: Jan 16, 2016 12:41 PM

    You are spot on about Len Dawson. He has been a part of the Chiefs on air team since he retired and never fails to teach listeners something new.

    He’s the seventh son of a seventh son, so, in a sense, a kind of biblical figure. His HBO gig was must see TV.

  114. PhD says: Jan 16, 2016 12:45 PM

    SHOCKER! The boobs at NFL network wrapped up in their egos and thinking that people actually care what these fatheads have to say. It’s not just this game, it’s pretty much their entire broadcast day.

  115. buckethead1 says: Jan 16, 2016 12:46 PM

    65 Toss Power Trap….Way to go boys!

  116. mellimac says: Jan 16, 2016 12:50 PM

    There was more chit-chat from commentators than their was of the game! Brutal. They would pan to the NFL studio, and the commentators talked garbage, then we’d get a play or two from the game, then back to the studio for several minutes, commercials, studio, then a couple more plays…prime example of how to screw up a game. I was hoping it’d be like NFL replay, where they show the whole game in under an hour and commentating would be restricted to players comments…you know, the one’s who played the actual game, not a round table of has-beens….

  117. lylelylelyle says: Jan 16, 2016 12:52 PM

    I’m so happy this guy didn’t take the NFL’s offer of $30K. He had something that will continue to gain value, and it’s pathetic that the NFL won’t pay for it. Not to be that guy, but maybe Rog could forefit some of the $40 EFFING MILLION he’s making this year and give real NFL fans something special.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  118. vikingdoode says: Jan 16, 2016 1:05 PM

    did the Chiefs win this time…

  119. zeke2517 says: Jan 16, 2016 1:05 PM

    The NFL Network is a shoddy television channel. This is not new information.

  120. ivanpavlov0000 says: Jan 16, 2016 1:15 PM

    They should provide a clean broadcast of the game in addition to the version where they talk over it (like the commentary version of a DVD movie).

    Wondering why they didn’t do an SB 1 reunion, bringing together all of the (still living) players and staff from the game. Having them all in the same room and talking to each other would have been interesting. Fred Williamson verbally sparring with the old Packers would have been fun to watch.

  121. theofficialshotcaller says: Jan 16, 2016 1:22 PM

    Total disgrace, Goodell ruins anything he touches.

    Didn’t see an actual game anytime I went to that channel.

    Once I saw a split screen with old highlights on one side and about 15 chairs with uncomfortable people unsure whose turn it was too babble endlessly to be certain no one could hear any audio from the game that was supposed to be one.

    Then I believe inbetween the 3rd and 4th quarters they left that large split screen talking head panel went to a smaller talking head panel featured exclusively with no video of any game.

    May be one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.

    As astute posters have said they got rid of actual broadcasts of old games (That battiboy Goodell probably thought they were bad for the NFLs fake hypocritical vomit inducing PR) and shows like Playbook where they actually talked about FOOTBALL instead of which guys Odell Beckham and Michael Sam are doing or who said mean things to someone.

  122. Wisconsin's Favorite Son Jeffrey Be Dahmed says: Jan 16, 2016 1:23 PM

    As Wisconsin’s Favorite Son, I love my team and am proud to see them on TV. Even when they choke. Hard. And often. I am the epitome of Green Bay Packer fandom. I represent the 414 like no other. I am Wisconsin’s Favorite Son. You can tell by all the thumbs up. I am willing to share my fame and recipes with other Packers fans. Come join me. Go Pack!

  123. mudd1997 says: Jan 16, 2016 1:23 PM

    Imagine how great it would have been with the Ray Scott play-by-play

  124. tamboafl says: Jan 16, 2016 1:33 PM

    If the NFL ever decides to actually “re-broadcast” from the original CBS/NBC broadcast, then maybe I would watch. Even though the league owns the rights to all of these old network broadcasts they seem to prefer usually NFL films exclusively.

  125. rutledge3197 says: Jan 16, 2016 1:51 PM

    There is another copy of the ORIGINAL
    BROADCAST in the Paley Center in NYC..
    But these morons with theirs billions wouldn’t know a good thing if it bit them
    In the sack

  126. fasteddie43 says: Jan 16, 2016 2:00 PM

    They should have done what they did with the Ice Bowl, put the entire game together, start to end, and then mated in the NBC Radio call of the game as best they could, but what they really should do is offer whatever the Paley Center wants for the only existing almost complete game tape, remaster that footage, use what NFL Films has assembled for the missing 3rd quarter, and put the NBC radio call with the whole thing. I would pay $25 for that DVD.

  127. theaveragecharlie says: Jan 16, 2016 2:05 PM

    Gawd, it was awful. Disappointing. I don’t need to listen to ex jocks laughing it up. And very poor commentary. Except for the historian. Please, make the original available on DVD so we can watch it as it was intended to be watched.

  128. theofficialshotcaller says: Jan 16, 2016 2:05 PM

    You don’t become or stay a billionaire by PAYING for things like someone who isn’t a scumbag crook.

    Now buy as another stadium for our tax free charity

  129. nyneal says: Jan 16, 2016 2:18 PM

    It was a joke the way they did it. I watched that game live and was really excited that it was going to be shown again.
    They could not have done a worse job, especially by having that trash talking Fred Williamson there. He hasn’t changed at all.
    He left before they showed the clip of him being carted off the field on a stretcher as the Packers players laughed.
    The 1960’s Packers were the greatest dynasty in NFL history. No other team has won 5 championships in 7 years. And they were driving for another one against the Eagles in 1960, but the great Chuck Bednarik tackled Jim Taylor on the Eagles 7 yard line as time ran out.
    The NFL Network should be ashamed for the way it showed that game. It was like a date at age 14. All talk and no delivery.

  130. briang123 says: Jan 16, 2016 2:23 PM

    The original broadcast everyone is talking about is missing the entire third quarter. There is no known complete broadcast.

  131. Baba Ganoosh says: Jan 16, 2016 2:23 PM

    I wouldn’t have guessed anyone was sick of the dawgs at the nfl channel.

  132. thegreenandcold says: Jan 16, 2016 2:30 PM

    It was a bore fest anyways. GB was favored way back then as well. Then their “fans” act like they were on the field playing with them. Then when the Packers sucked for over 2 decades, Green Bay was a ghost town (yes, I live in Green Bay so I would know) yet they claim to be the “best” fans in the NFL.

    They didn’t get back on the bandwagon until Favre came into the mix and played well. This city, and the GB fans are everything they claim other fans are, bandwagon jumping, and fair weather.
    ————————————————-
    You should look at how many years in a row Lambeau Field has been sold out. Enlightening stuff.

  133. billbrasky72 says: Jan 16, 2016 2:31 PM

    I tried to watch it for a while. I don’t know what was worse…the commentary or the game itself. I’m 100% certain a decent FCS school today would mop up either of those teams.

  134. ohand16 says: Jan 16, 2016 2:44 PM

    They’ve got Lindsay Rhodes and she is hot as hell

  135. trozenfundra says: Jan 16, 2016 2:50 PM

    cowboylover says:
    Jan 16, 2016 10:50 AM
    I felt as though I was watching Mystery Science Theater 3000.
    ___________________________
    I was gonna come on here an post the exact same thing! Glad I’m not the only one who thought that. I turned it off after 1/2 an hour.

  136. catquick says: Jan 16, 2016 3:03 PM

    I couldn’t stand the chatter mouths. I wanted to hear the broadcast, but yak, yak was always in the way. I turned it off.

  137. briwis7 says: Jan 16, 2016 3:13 PM

    It was brutal. I was excited to watch then got that crap. No full screen either. Even the Al Capone vault special was better. Well….

  138. mark0226 says: Jan 16, 2016 3:23 PM

    Pay the Man!

    The NFL needs to get the original broadcast from the Paley Center as mentioned in the Yahoo Story “Why the NFL is unable to re-air original broadcast of Super Bowl I”.

  139. siuleno says: Jan 16, 2016 3:29 PM

    The NFL Network is the equivalent to ESPN Magazine. get it together, yo.

  140. sueb45 says: Jan 16, 2016 3:45 PM

    I turned it off after 10 minutes. You couldn’t follow the game.

  141. captainspangled says: Jan 16, 2016 4:17 PM

    The NFL/NFLN have two inherent issues which no doubt held this program back:

    1) The NFL’s weird, paranoid protection over classic broadcast s, an area which they significantly lag behind the NBA. It isn’t a stretch to imagine that they intentionally wanted this broadcast interrupted to deter people from recording and treating it as a true rebroadcast.

    2) Whoever is managing the personalities on their shows. Those guys do really have journalistic talent, but its constantly put behind the wayside and segments are routinely dropped so these guys can relive their playing days and namdrop which of today’s stars that they “mentored”

  142. texancheesehead says: Jan 16, 2016 4:19 PM

    “It was a bore fest anyways. GB was favored way back then as well. Then their “fans” act like they were on the field playing with them. Then when the Packers sucked for over 2 decades, Green Bay was a ghost town (yes, I live in Green Bay so I would know) yet they claim to be the “best” fans in the NFL.

    They didn’t get back on the bandwagon until Favre came into the mix and played well. This city, and the GB fans are everything they claim other fans are, bandwagon jumping, and fair weather.”
    ———————————————————-
    Perhaps then you can tell us why Lambeau Field has sold out every game for over 50 years if they’re such bandwagoners. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

  143. gregbeau says: Jan 16, 2016 4:23 PM

    ohand16 says:
    They’ve got Lindsay Rhodes and she is hot as hell

    ==

    No doubt about that, she is just awesome. And they have Kim Jones in NYC, my favorite, such a lovely, classy lady. That doesn’t forgive this lousy presentation, but they do have some real assets.

  144. dispozblcopy says: Jan 16, 2016 4:31 PM

    NFL Network, NFL Office, NFL website — all self-serving nonsense, and that’s on the events and issues when they aren’t incompetent, worse-than-amateurish nincompoops.

    If it wasn’t Coca-cola, a money-making machine that a monkey could run and still make money, the business of the NFL of it would have no reason to live.

    Such talent on the field, such loyalty in the fanbase deserves better. But with a billionaire boys’ club–including some truly vile, infantile brats literally owning the business– nothing will ever get done. It’s as if it’s being run by Kim Jung Il, with no other principles for its existence but to continue to exist and make billions for clown-princes.

    And the crowd went wild.

  145. lindacaseauthor says: Jan 16, 2016 5:11 PM

    Best Packers play I’ve ever seen . . . #prehistoricPackersrock

  146. plofus67 says: Jan 16, 2016 5:45 PM

    I like how they did it,kinda like a documentary while showing the game,but I like all that stuff about what was going on in the world,they should also put out a show with just the game where you can hear the call.Hope they do SB II next year…III the following year etc….

  147. jerryd1 says: Jan 16, 2016 6:57 PM

    That was pathetic. Just like The View with those ladies babbling nonsense.

    Show it with no comment!!

    Waited weeks for this & couldn’t even make it to half time. Someone needs to dress up like Lombadi & pop them all in the nads!!

  148. stevedave13 says: Jan 16, 2016 9:54 PM

    Steelers are a cheap and dirty team with some of the worst and most annoying fans in football. Everyone knows that. But the league loves to baby them. And their coaches are dirty too. Both those teams should lose draft picks over that game.

  149. athenscivilwar47 says: Jan 17, 2016 12:43 AM

    I was drafted in august of 1966. Missed the whole damned thing. Ironically in august of 1968 on the way home I was in Hofstra Univ on Long Island and got to met Namath Boo zer Snell all the Jets in training camp. They went on to win SBIII.

  150. mpasse says: Jan 17, 2016 1:55 AM

    NFL Network believes that what we want to see are jocks sitting around shooting their mouths off. I was so disappointed I shut the thing off after 15 minutes. But NFL Network is always like this. Obnoxious would be the best word.

  151. razzlejag says: Jan 17, 2016 8:43 AM

    I loved the comparison to “The View”. Maybe Whoopi and the girls to do the SB II one. Lol.

    Also, kudos to the guy who said the Al Capone’s Vaults story with Geraldo Rivera was a better show. It was at least comparable.

  152. usdcoyotesfan says: Jan 18, 2016 12:49 AM

    I love my Packers, but it’s pretty pathetic that so many people would get so upset about the broadcast of a game from 50 years ago being washed out.

    Seriously, have any of you ever been on a date?

  153. jonwill57 says: Jan 18, 2016 9:33 AM

    livenbreathefootball says:
    Jan 16, 2016 10:34 AM

    I thought it was just me. Too much talk, not enough play. Dawson talking was great. Mariucci analyzing the plays was good. Everything else was a distraction.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Every live broadcast on NFL Network is a big distraction! Way too many talking heads speaking at the same time. Poor Chris Rose, he gets no respect from Faulk, Sanders and Irvin (who from time looks and acts like he’s relapsed).

  154. toolkien says: Jan 18, 2016 4:49 PM

    Certainly not AS bad, but it was sort of like that 1978 Star Wars Christmas special. You expected one thing (basically a rebroadcast of the game) and got a bunch of talking nabobs talking over clips instead (albeit exhaustively inclusive, but who cares? If was going to be all talking, I’d rather it be edited to the important and exciting plays).

    Just like that special – expected something pretty cool (I was too poor to get to go to the movies and this was going to be something I COULD see). But we got Maude and Norton and Harvey Korman and a splitting headache instead. At was an hour and half or so, I bailed on that in about 15 minutes. This “rebroadcast” I was out after about five.

    In short, somebody REALLY thinks we give a crepe what Steve Mariucci thinks, or any of the rest. I guess somebody must watch all that talking, I don’t. Just more of the same NFL Network hot air.

    Disappointing.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!