’64/’65 Bills

[74_75_78_79_]

When most consider who they think is the best AFL team, most will look to the two who actually won the SB (’68 Jets & ’69 Chiefs) along with the ’63 Chargers who many feel would have beaten the Bears or at least gave them a game. Those late-’60s Raiders squads are also looked at. It seems, however, that those back-to-back AFC champ Bills teams get overlooked. There aren’t many, if any at all, who actually feel these squads were better than Green Bay either of those years, but is there anyone in here who feel that just, maybe, these squads might actually be the best in the AFL’s ten-year history?

Thoughts?

[conace21]

The 1964 Bills, maybe. They were #1 in offense and defense, for both points and yards. Their 12-2 record is tied for the 4th best record in AFL history. (1961 Chargers, and 1967 and 1969 Raiders.) I think they would have given Cleveland a battle in the mythical Super Bowl, especially since Cleveland struggled to stop the run, and that's what the Bills did best. I don't think they would shut down Jim Brown, but at least they would keep him from running wild.
(Now if Cleveland had performed the way they did against Baltimore, I dont think any team would beat them.)
The 1965 Bills struggled to move the ball with the trade of Cookie Gilchrist and injuries to their starting wide receivers. They were the best in 1965, but not the best all time in the AFL.

[JeffreyMiller]

The Bills of 1965 were playing without stud running back Cookie Gilchrist and lost both their starting WRs (Dubenion and Bass) and had to play in the championship game with a double tight end formation. So, in terms of balance, there is no question that the Bills of 64 were superior. And I also think they would have given Cleveland a run for their money. The teams were very similar, especially offensively.

The Packers of 65 would have destroyed the injury-riddled Bills.

[ChrisBabcock]

The Packers of 65 would have destroyed the injury-riddled Bills.

^^^ This I completely agree with. And I think they would have given the Browns a game in '64 and quite possibly won. Jeff, what's your take on the Bills chances vs. the Packers in SB1? I've heard folks say they would have matched up a lot better than KC but probably only would have kept the game closer... but not enough for the upset.

[Shipley]

Another factor that probably makes the 1964 team superior, 1965 was a down year for the league as a whole. Look up 1965 AFL season in Wikipedia to see the standings. Very telling. The Chargers tied three games that season. The Jets, Chiefs and Raiders were a year away from emerging.

[JeffreyMiller]

The Packers of 65 would have destroyed the injury-riddled Bills.

^^^ This I completely agree with. And I think they would have given the Browns a game in '64 and quite possibly won. Jeff, what's your take on the Bills chances vs. the Packers in SB1? I've heard folks say they would have matched up a lot better than KC but probably only would have kept the game closer... but not enough for the upset.

I always felt the Chiefs were the more deserving team by this time. The Bills were spent by 1966, between age, injuries and the loss of Lou Saban. The Chiefs' defense was the best in the league now, and had many players who either have made the HOF (Buchanan, Bell, Thomas) and one who should be in the Hall (Robinson).

The truth is neither team was going to beat the Packers that year. The optimal time for the Bills to have beaten an NFL team was in 64. The Chiefs were a team on the rise ...

[Jay Z]

The Bills of 1965 were playing without stud running back Cookie Gilchrist and lost both their starting WRs (Dubenion and Bass) and had to play in the championship game with a double tight end formation. So, in terms of balance, there is no question that the Bills of 64 were superior. And I also think they would have given Cleveland a run for their money. The teams were very similar, especially offensively.

The Packers of 65 would have destroyed the injury-riddled Bills.

I think the route to victory for the Bills against the Browns would be if they could dominate the game on the ground. Like the Packers in the '65 championship game. John Henry Johnson ran for 200 against the Browns in '64 in a game the Steelers won 23-7. That is the way. Keep the Browns off the field.

In a higher scoring game, or if the Bills have to punt too many times, the Browns have the edge. The Browns had a lot of weapons with Jim Brown, Collins, and Warfield. Ernie Green to an extent. Better weapons than the Bills. The Bills had a good upfront defense; backfield was alright but not as good as the front. They weren't the Packers back there. Plus, Jack Kemp had lousy passing statistics, and I wouldn't trust him in any sort of shootout against a good NFL team.

[Bryan]

There aren’t many, if any at all, who actually feel these squads were better than Green Bay either of those years, but is there anyone in here who feel that just, maybe, these squads might actually be the best in the AFL’s ten-year history?

Thoughts?

When you say "best in AFL history", do you mean if the 1964-65 Bills played the 1968-69 Chiefs, the Bills would prevail?

I think the number of great players in the late-60's AFL was superior to the number of great players at previous points of AFL history. I think it would be possible for the last place 1969 Dolphins to defeat the 1960 Oilers.

To answer your question, I think the 1967-69 Raiders were the 'best team' in AFL history, but if you have to pick one year it would be the 1969 Chiefs. I think the most dominant AFL team for a season was the 1963 Chargers, because they were so much better relative to the other 1963 AFL teams in terms of talent and coaching. It's not all that surprising the Chargers won the title game by such a large margin.

The 64 Bills might be the only AFL team that had the best offensive player (Gilchrist) and best defensive player (Sestak) in the league for that season. They were very good, but in a roundabout way I think if the Colts had beaten the Browns in the 64 title game, there wouldn't be as much discussion about the 64 Bills winning a mythical Super Bowl. The 1964 Colts were statistically one of the best teams in NFL history. But I guess they also said that about the 1968 Colts, and that didn't turn out well.

[SixtiesFan]

There aren’t many, if any at all, who actually feel these squads were better than Green Bay either of those years, but is there anyone in here who feel that just, maybe, these squads might actually be the best in the AFL’s ten-year history?

Thoughts?

When you say "best in AFL history", do you mean if the 1964-65 Bills played the 1968-69 Chiefs, the Bills would prevail?

I think the number of great players in the late-60's AFL was superior to the number of great players at previous points of AFL history. I think it would be possible for the last place 1969 Dolphins to defeat the 1960 Oilers.

To answer your question, I think the 1967-69 Raiders were the 'best team' in AFL history, but if you have to pick one year it would be the 1969 Chiefs. I think the most dominant AFL team for a season was the 1963 Chargers, because they were so much better relative to the other 1963 AFL teams in terms of talent and coaching. It's not all that surprising the Chargers won the title game by such a large margin.

The 64 Bills might be the only AFL team that had the best offensive player (Gilchrist) and best defensive player (Sestak) in the league for that season. They were very good, but in a roundabout way I think if the Colts had beaten the Browns in the 64 title game, there wouldn't be as much discussion about the 64 Bills winning a mythical Super Bowl. The 1964 Colts were statistically one of the best teams in NFL history. But I guess they also said that about the 1968 Colts, and that didn't turn out well.

Speaking of the 1964 and 1968 Colts, was the Browns 27-0 1964 NFL Title win a bigger surprise in retrospect than Super Bowl III?

[JeffreyMiller]

There aren’t many, if any at all, who actually feel these squads were better than Green Bay either of those years, but is there anyone in here who feel that just, maybe, these squads might actually be the best in the AFL’s ten-year history?

Thoughts?

When you say "best in AFL history", do you mean if the 1964-65 Bills played the 1968-69 Chiefs, the Bills would prevail?

I think the number of great players in the late-60's AFL was superior to the number of great players at previous points of AFL history. I think it would be possible for the last place 1969 Dolphins to defeat the 1960 Oilers.

To answer your question, I think the 1967-69 Raiders were the 'best team' in AFL history, but if you have to pick one year it would be the 1969 Chiefs. I think the most dominant AFL team for a season was the 1963 Chargers, because they were so much better relative to the other 1963 AFL teams in terms of talent and coaching. It's not all that surprising the Chargers won the title game by such a large margin.

The 64 Bills might be the only AFL team that had the best offensive player (Gilchrist) and best defensive player (Sestak) in the league for that season. They were very good, but in a roundabout way I think if the Colts had beaten the Browns in the 64 title game, there wouldn't be as much discussion about the 64 Bills winning a mythical Super Bowl. The 1964 Colts were statistically one of the best teams in NFL history. But I guess they also said that about the 1968 Colts, and that didn't turn out well.

Speaking of the 1964 and 1968 Colts, was the Browns 27-0 1964 NFL Title win a bigger surprise in retrospect than Super Bowl III?

Maybe not the fact that they beat the Colts, but shutting them out and winning by a 27-point bulge possibly is.