1970 NFL season - expectations, retrospect

[74_75_78_79_]

To those who were around for it, were you excited about the obvious change or did you simply wish it’d stay NFL-and-AFL? Did you like the divisions and playoffs format?

I would imagine Dallas being expected to run away with the East, not anticipating G-men and Cards to give them all they could handle. Did anyone expect Cincy & SF to be winners yet alone win their divisions? Dolphins making playoffs in Shula’s first year already?

The Pack did improve from ’68 the previous year, getting back above-500 at 8-6, but with their off-season losses perhaps not too optimistic after all. That opening 40-0 drubbing to Lions at Lambeau had to hurt thus remind that a Dynasty was indeed over (and Vince’s passing over the summer added to it). Yet FWIW they win their next three, a win over Minn in that stretch, en route to 4-2 and 5-4 starts.

Both teams playing in that first Monday Nighter, Jets & Browns, had to be expected to make playoffs. I’m sure no one could have predicted Namath not returning ever again to the playoffs as a Jet. I would guess Vikings were the faves going in. Perhaps SBV being a rematch from the year before? Both Minn & KC did play in the opener. Vikings/Raiders SB the popular expectation instead? Anyone think Colts under a new HC would bounce back with a best-record-in-conference finish?

[BD Sullivan]

To those who were around for it, were you excited about the obvious change or did you simply wish it’d stay NFL-and-AFL? Did you like the divisions and playoffs format?

I would imagine Dallas being expected to run away with the East, not anticipating G-men and Cards to give them all they could handle. Did anyone expect Cincy & SF to be winners yet alone win their divisions? Dolphins making playoffs in Shula’s first year already?

The Pack did improve from ’68 the previous year, getting back above-500 at 8-6, but with their off-season losses perhaps not too optimistic after all. That opening 40-0 drubbing to Lions at Lambeau had to hurt thus remind that a Dynasty was indeed over (and Vince’s passing over the summer added to it). Yet FWIW they win their next three, a win over Minn in that stretch, en route to 4-2 and 5-4 starts.

Both teams playing in that first Monday Nighter, Jets & Browns, had to be expected to make playoffs. I’m sure no one could have predicted Namath not returning ever again to the playoffs as a Jet. I would guess Vikings were the faves going in. Perhaps SBV being a rematch from the year before? Both Minn & KC did play in the opener. Vikings/Raiders SB the popular expectation instead? Anyone think Colts under a new HC would bounce back with a best-record-in-conference finish?

I doubt most people expected Shula to get the Dolphins to the playoffs in his first year and the Niners surprised plenty of people.

Not sure what the Browns' issue was other than age, but they were 4-2 and then only won three of their last eight. With a little luck, they could have been 11-3, but I think they would have also gotten bounced by the Colts--like they did the following year.

That floundering allowed Cincy to get off the mat and also shock some people by reaching the playoffs. The fact that they did it without Greg Cook was probably even more surprising.

The Redskins were dealing with Lombardi being MIA during camp and then had to deal with his death two weeks before the season started.

I've said before that the Chiefs opening up with road games in Minnesota AND Baltimore probably wasn't a fluke and was the NFL's way of putting the Chiefs in their place. While it worked in the "revenge" opener, KC dominated the Colts on MNF. I know the Chiefs' slide was looked at the same way that the Niners stumble in 82 was: both had head coaches who were hailed as geniuses and had the "new" offense that would revolutionize the game during the ensuing decade. Stram did a better job with respect to the Chiefs' 7-5-2 record, though the strike didn't help Walsh.

[sheajets]

To those who were around for it, were you excited about the obvious change or did you simply wish it’d stay NFL-and-AFL? Did you like the divisions and playoffs format?

I would imagine Dallas being expected to run away with the East, not anticipating G-men and Cards to give them all they could handle. Did anyone expect Cincy & SF to be winners yet alone win their divisions? Dolphins making playoffs in Shula’s first year already?

The Pack did improve from ’68 the previous year, getting back above-500 at 8-6, but with their off-season losses perhaps not too optimistic after all. That opening 40-0 drubbing to Lions at Lambeau had to hurt thus remind that a Dynasty was indeed over (and Vince’s passing over the summer added to it). Yet FWIW they win their next three, a win over Minn in that stretch, en route to 4-2 and 5-4 starts.

Both teams playing in that first Monday Nighter, Jets & Browns, had to be expected to make playoffs. I’m sure no one could have predicted Namath not returning ever again to the playoffs as a Jet. I would guess Vikings were the faves going in. Perhaps SBV being a rematch from the year before? Both Minn & KC did play in the opener. Vikings/Raiders SB the popular expectation instead? Anyone think Colts under a new HC would bounce back with a best-record-in-conference finish?

Namath getting hurt. Maynard was very old by NFL standards by then and in a rapid decline. Sauer's loss of interest in football and retirement just really wrecked them

Jets didn't draft well the 2nd half of the Namath era either

[BD Sullivan]

Jets didn't draft well the 2nd half of the Namath era either

From 1971-73, their top picks were Riggins, Jerome Barkum and Burgess Owens. The problem was that virtually every other pick in those drafts was either a flop or did little with the Jets.

[7DnBrnc53]

Since it was the dawn of a new decade, what team did experts see as being the "Team of the 70's"?

Was it the Chiefs? Cowboys? or someone else (like the Steelers. Did fans see them as having a bright future after getting Bradshaw)?

[BD Sullivan]

Since it was the dawn of a new decade, what team did experts see as being the "Team of the 70's"?

Was it the Chiefs? Cowboys? or someone else (like the Steelers. Did fans see them as having a bright future after getting Bradshaw)?

The Chiefs supposedly had the "Offense of the 70's," but they got old within a few years and faded. The Cowboys had fallen short four years in a row, but the title of their 1969 highlight film was entitled, "Team for the 70's." The Steelers had been bad for so long and were coming off a 1-13 season. I don't think anybody though they were close to becoming what emerged.

[BD Sullivan]

A New York Times preview for the 1970 season had these now-amusing comments:

"The league plans to expand to 32 teams by the mid 70's"

The Dolphins were picked for third because "The Dolphins do not stop other teams, notably those with good passers."

"The Browns' route to the playoffs will be the easiest of any team in the NFL."

"The Bengals are in trouble"--because of the Cook injury, with the listed replacements being Sam Wyche and Dave Lewis. Virgil Carter was acquired in late August.

"is Gary (Cuozzo) a championship quarterback? The opening game, against the Chiefs, may tell."

A Falcons prediction: "The team should be a winner this year and has a load of enthusiasm." They finished 4-8-2.

"For two decades, rival coaches have admired the 49ers' talent and have said, "One of these days, they're going to put it all together."

"The Saints won five times and could do so again. The schedule is not taxing." They finished 2-11-1, with one win coming on Dempsey's miracle kick.'

The Chargers supposedly had the toughest schedule that year and finished with a 5-6-3 record.

[Saban1]

There were some things in 1970 that contributed to the Cleveland Browns downfall in 1970. Some are:

1. Nelson's knee injury. Cleveland did beat the Jets in the opener, and that was before the injuries to Namath, Snell, etc. In their second game against the 49ers, Nelson got his knee injured and this hurt his performances after that, according to at least one Browns player.

2. Being a new team in the AFL (AFC from 1970 on), I am sure that the AFL teams were all up for the Browns, especially Cincinnati.

3. The Warfield trade could not help. Paul Warfield was one of the best wide receivers in football. He also was a good open field blocker.

4. Bad luck. They certainly were unlucky to lose to Oakland. With time running out, Jim Houston ran to the sidelines and passed out before he could get out of bounds. This gave Oakland time for one more play that got them close enough to kick the winning field goal.

Also, the Browns made a bad decision by giving Blanda time for one more play instead of trying to kick a 56 yard field goal, which I believe that he would not have made. Instead, Blanda passed for a first down and then kicked a shorter field goal to win, 23 to 20. Cleveland should have let the clock run instead of calling time out to give the Raiders time to run another play and then kick.

I think that is how it happened in the Raiders game. Going by memory and it was a long time ago.

[BD Sullivan]

Also, the Browns made a bad decision by giving Blanda time for one more play instead of trying to kick a 56 yard field goal, which I believe that he would not have made. Instead, Blanda passed for a first down and then kicked a shorter field goal to win, 23 to 20. Cleveland should have let the clock run instead of calling time out to give the Raiders time to run another play and then kick.

I think that is how it happened in the Raiders game. Going by memory and it was a long time ago.

I don't think Blanda got the first down, but it moved the eventual kick up 3-4 yards, which was just enough. Ironically, had it been one week earlier and Blanda been successful on a 56-yarder, he would have tied the NFL record. Except earlier on the day of his game-winner against the Browns, Dempsey broke it with his 63-yarder.

[Saban1]

What struck me about the 1970 season was the inequity in the schedules. Some teams would get easy games outside of their division whereas other teams would almost be eliminated before the season even started. For instance: Washington in the NFC east had to play 5 teams outside of the Eastern Division that ended up in the playoffs( San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland,Cincinnati, and Minnesota), whereas the Giants only played one winning team (the Rams) outside of their division. Dallas was the team that benefited the most from this in the NFC, going to the Super Bowl despite losing to Minnesota, 54 to 13, and losing to the Cardinals twice, 38 to 0 in one of their games.

Another thing hurting Washington was the death of Vince Lombardi. The Giants beat the Redskins twice coming back from behind to win. Not sure that would have happened with a healthy Vince. There was also some luck in the Giants case. Who would have guessed that the entire Jets backfield (Namath, Snell, Boozer) would be wiped out with injuries before they played the Giants?