Better (8-4-2) Raiders team, '70 or '71?

[74_75_78_79_]

Not quite the anomaly of the Cards finishing 4-9-1 in 1969, '71, '72, and '73, but Oakland finishing 8-4-2 in 1970 and '71 is an interesting-enough factoid.

The 'nadir' of the Madden Era, I guess you call it (albeit a...17-9-4 one).

Of course the first of the two not only made the playoffs, but the CCG, while the second didn't make the playoffs at all due to the Chiefs returning to greatness again for one more year. Whereas the Raiders won and tied against them in '70, they lost and tied against KC in '71. Despite Oakland not making it in '71, would any of you actually place them above '70 given the possible logic that, let's face it, tougher competitors within conference that year (NFC a stronger conference than the year before as well).

Again with the Chiefs returning to championship-form as already mentioned, but Baltimore was even stronger, resembling more of a 'championship' formula with now a solid run-game and even better ('Historic') defense. They routed Raiders at Alameda, 37-14, instead of 'just' 27-17 as the year before, that one being at home. And then there's Miami, in Shula's second year there, not just being a mere playoff team, but even better than the defending-Champs, and end-of-day, were now ready to represent the AFC!

The AFC Central had a stronger leader in '71, the Browns, who the Raiders did defeat, 34-20, at Cleveland early. But that would be their only win over a winning team that whole year. In 1970, the only above-500 whom they beat was 7-5-2 KC. They played the eventual division champ of the AFC Central as well, Cincy, but lost to them in the opener - before the Bengals would, then, lose their following six games! And plenty of 'Blanda Magic' to be said of that campaign as well.

'71 Raiders were #2 in points-scored as 1970's offense was #1 yardage-wise. It looks like '71 had a slightly stronger defense.

Of course making it to the CCG undebateably more to hang your hat on than not making the playoffs at all, but if you do place that exact '70 installment into the tougher '71 season, do they actually fare better than an 8-4-2 non-qualifier if not, actually...worse? Hmm, I can't really help but to think the latter. Again, tougher competition, this time, in '71.

[Brian wolf]

The Raiders needed luck to win the division in 1970, plus a KC team that was either complacent in 1970 or relying too much on a conservative, ball-control offense. Pitts and Richardson were never a factor that year and the Chiefs replaced Mike Garrett with Podolak, while giving less carries to Holmes and McVea. Maybe replacing EJ Holub for Rudnay, changed the chemistry on the line?

The Raiders were better with Warren Wells who they didnt have in 1971. By then, I think Madden was starting to feel it was time to get Stabler more involved with the offense because the team was getting stale with Lamonica, who Davis preferred. Dixon for some reason retired, though Hubbard replaced him nicely and the running game thrived, but though Biletnikoff had a great year, the passing game suffered. When Unitas and the Colts blitzed their team, they went reeling but gave the Chiefs a great game before losing the division.

Madden in retrospect, felt it was a good year because they were getting more younger players experience, with the transition from the veterans and having to adjust without a great talent like Wells.

[74_75_78_79_]

I watched both NFL Films summaries on both these teams. Each well done and caught the excitement of each campaign. I always like it when it chronologically covers each and every game from start to finish instead of jumping around. These two are an example of that. Yes, both are lesser Raider squads than surrounding years (and '73 is stronger in my opinion and, I'm going to guess, most other opinions).

But if I'm a Raiders-fan, I look at '70 & '71 as being quite exciting. Each contained an important penultimate showdown with the Chiefs for the division title. 1970 could have easily been Miami at Chiefs in the divisional round one year early - just that it wouldn't have been on Christmas Day; and 1971 could have been Dolphins at Alameda on Christmas Day instead. Would it have gone beyond regulation?

1973 would be the last true hurrah of the Raiders/Chiefs rivalry whilst foreshadowing Denver rearing their head as near-future contenders. With two weeks to go, not just Oak & KC (both being set to play that penultimate week at Alameda), the Broncos were still in it to win the AFC West as well with a finale date vs the Raiders which would turn out to be a win-or-go-home affair. The reason why I place '73 above both '70 & '71 isn't just because of the better W/L record, but because they did beat Miami in Wk#2, convincingly eliminating the Steelers in the divisional, and TWO - not just one - within their division fighting them for it.

But '70 & '71, to me, is as good as a possible..."nadir" can get, lol.

I knew that James Garner was a big Raiders-fan. He'd go to the games, be seen on the sidelines. But I thought that may have been strictly in the '80s when they were in LA. No, not just the '80s, but years before the 'Rockford Files', the 'father' of the Greatest TV Series of All-TIme (David Chase a big contributor though not originally on staff; he ended up bringing many RF actors to that very Creation of his decades later).

Bradshaw has said that during his very lean early years in the 'Burgh, that he went to Al Davis to ask if he could play for his team instead. Al apparently responded that he already had enough problems but that he'd talk to Chuck - they were friends - and suggest giving #12 a better go at things. I'm guessing this would have taken place during either of these two seasons that this topic is about. "Problems", I'm going to guess, were referring to Davis's three QBs - Lamonica, Blanda, Stabler.

This move may be seen sort-of in the same light as Jerry Jones offering Michael Irvin to Al in a trade with Al responding, paraphrasing, "No! Keep him! He scores too many TDs for you guys!" "Sort-of", I say, because I'm not so sure the Raiders are that much better in the '90s with #88 there. Maybe an extra CCG-appearance to add to '90 but nothing worth making that lively of a 'what-if' over.

Bradshaw to the Raiders, however? I revere Snake and am glad he's in Canton (though I would have preferred not posthumously), but I can't help but to think the Raiders end up winning more than three Lombardis through '83 whilst there never being a 'dynasty' in the 'Burgh. Maybe Steelers still win one or, maybe, two within that '74/'75 window with Stabler at QB (assuming a straight-up trade, he for Terry), but just imagine '78 & '79 without Terry there!! Those two years were his double tour de force while Stabler fell off during that time. Bradshaw very likely turns those two 9-7 non-playoff teams into at least 11-5s with they having plenty of potential to run-the-table in at least one of those two hypo-Raider post-seasons with he under center instead.

Sure-enough Noll would have ended up finally going with, and sticking with, Bradshaw in the end (of '74) anyway without Al "taking to" him. But an interesting hypo, I'd say. Thank God it didn't happen.