Disappointing title defenses

[Brian wolf]

Many people dont realize that the Jets and Chiefs had byes during their SB runs that might have helped them win. The Jets were idle while the Raiders/Chiefs battled it out and the Chiefs had a bye after beating the Jets before playing the Raiders in the AFL Champ game ...

[Terry Baldshaw]

It has to be the 1947 Chicago Cardinals. They've been trying to repeat for 73 seasons.

[racepug]

It has to be the 1947 Chicago Cardinals. They've been trying to repeat for 73 seasons.

[RichardBak]

I dont know RichardBak ...

I dont believe Dawson gets voted in, had he lost to the Vikings. The talk of him being unable to beat NFL teams and losing two SB games would have been loud, despite his AFL Championships ...

Well, that's the classic glass half-empty/half-full argument, I guess. Had KC lost to the Vikings, someone could say Dawson lost 2 of the first 4 SB, and someone else would say the guy was good enough to lead a team into 2 of the first 4 SB.

Anyway, a moot point. Len's got his gold jacket.

[RichardBak]

(especially after that contrived '69 playoff system screwed the Jets and Raiders out of a title-game rematch that year)

I think the A.F.L. did that because they didn't want to take the chance on one team going into their championship game having played a game while the other participant rested (as happened the previous season). I was much too young to remember anything about that season but later finding out that in the playoffs that year the Kansas City Chiefs held: 1) the A.F.L.'s highest-scoring team, 2) the defending Super Bowl champions, and 3) the N.F.L.'s highest-scoring team to a combined 20 points tells me that the Chiefs' "D" back then was really good!

From what I remember, that postseason was strictly a money grab by the networks and the AFL. Of course, aren't they all? But this time seemed especially egregious and unfair, at least from a fan's perspective. Remember, at the time there were no such things as wild cards or 1st vs 2nd place playoffs. It was strictly conference winners meeting each other in the NFL and AFL. (Of course, there was the occasional divisional tie-breaker game, but that was not a scheduled round of the postseason.) As a kid whose second-fave team was Oakland, it made no sense to me when they announced it before the season began--and it really cheesed me off that, after Oakland beat KC twice in two great games during the regular season, they would have to beat them a third freakin' time to get to the SB.

I've always been a purist---never cared for wild cards and .500 teams making the postseason and all that in FB and baseball---but I remember having a real awakening with the '69 AFL. I was still naive and thought it was all about competition and having the two best teams at the end of the season playing for the title. Instead we had the 7-7 Oilers and a team twice beaten by Oakland, appearing in a postseason that made no sense. Like a lot of guys who loved the original AFL, we were dying for a rematch of the '68 Raiders-Jets title game. Joe Willie vs. the Mad Bomber, Lamonica. By all rights that's what it should've been, and who knows, Namath might've avoided getting decapitated by Big Ben Davidson and outgunned Lamonica and gone on to win a second straight SB, this time upsetting the Vikings.

Instead here I am, still bitching about it a half-century later. Sheesh. I gotta get a life.

[Jamie Johnson]

1991 Giants- With the over his head Ray Handley succeeding the retired Parcells, the Giants tumbled to an 8-8 mark. The Giants Week 1 win over the 49ers was their high point.

1981 Raiders- Perhaps it was the inevitable move to LA, but the Raiders never got untracked following their Super Bowl XV victory. Oakland never won more than two games in a row during this 7-9 year. The low light was setting a NFL record of being shutout in three consecutive games to Detroit, Denver and Kansas City.

[Brian wolf]

I understand your point about Dawson, RichardBak but had he lost to the Vikings, would he still get voted into the Hall ?

Kemp won two out of five AFL Championships, taking different teams but cant get voted in ...

[racepug]

2003 Buccaneers: Were expected to repeat by a lot of people, but Keyshawn Johnson became a problem, and they had seven losses by seven points or less, including the Week 2 loss to Carolina (where they had the XP blocked at the end of regulation) and the Week 5 loss to Indy (where they blew 35-14 lead in the fourth quarter).

Dang. Good memory!

[SixtiesFan]

(especially after that contrived '69 playoff system screwed the Jets and Raiders out of a title-game rematch that year)

I think the A.F.L. did that because they didn't want to take the chance on one team going into their championship game having played a game while the other participant rested (as happened the previous season). I was much too young to remember anything about that season but later finding out that in the playoffs that year the Kansas City Chiefs held: 1) the A.F.L.'s highest-scoring team, 2) the defending Super Bowl champions, and 3) the N.F.L.'s highest-scoring team to a combined 20 points tells me that the Chiefs' "D" back then was really good!

From what I remember, that postseason was strictly a money grab by the networks and the AFL. Of course, aren't they all? But this time seemed especially egregious and unfair, at least from a fan's perspective. Remember, at the time there were no such things as wild cards or 1st vs 2nd place playoffs. It was strictly conference winners meeting each other in the NFL and AFL. (Of course, there was the occasional divisional tie-breaker game, but that was not a scheduled round of the postseason.) As a kid whose second-fave team was Oakland, it made no sense to me when they announced it before the season began--and it really cheesed me off that, after Oakland beat KC twice in two great games during the regular season, they would have to beat them a third freakin' time to get to the SB.

I've always been a purist---never cared for wild cards and .500 teams making the postseason and all that in FB and baseball---but I remember having a real awakening with the '69 AFL. I was still naive and thought it was all about competition and having the two best teams at the end of the season playing for the title. Instead we had the 7-7 Oilers and a team twice beaten by Oakland, appearing in a postseason that made no sense. Like a lot of guys who loved the original AFL, we were dying for a rematch of the '68 Raiders-Jets title game. Joe Willie vs. the Mad Bomber, Lamonica. By all rights that's what it should've been, and who knows, Namath might've avoided getting decapitated by Big Ben Davidson and outgunned Lamonica and gone on to win a second straight SB, this time upsetting the Vikings.

Instead here I am, still bitching about it a half-century later. Sheesh. I gotta get a life.

Yes, if the 1968 setup had still existed in 1969, the Chiefs would not have been in Super Bowl IV. With the Chiefs and the 6-6-2 Oilers in the playoffs it meant two extra games and more TV money. Over the decades the playoffs have kept expanding for this reason.

In 1970, O.J. Simpson and his Boswell, Pete Axthelm, put out a book on O.J.'s rookie season. I'm one of the few people who read it at the time. On Super Bowl IV, O.J. said something like, "I think Oakland would have beaten the Vikings worse than Kansas City did. The Jets also would have won. Namath eats up pass defenses like MInnesota's."

[racepug]

From what I remember, that postseason was strictly a money grab by the networks and the AFL. Of course, aren't they all?

Yes.

But this time seemed especially egregious and unfair, at least from a fan's perspective.

$$$ is never very far from the minds of those who run sports leagues.

Instead here I am, still bitching about it a half-century later. Sheesh. I gotta get a life.

Don't sweat it. I've got football memories going back about the same amount of time that still p*ss me off, too (even though for at least one that I can remember I was but a wee lad at the time).