Was the NFL in 1971 that weak?

[7DnBrnc53]

On You Tube, I found a recording of what was called The Sports Huddle out of WEEI in Boston from 12/26/1971 (the day after the Mia-KC playoff classic). Eddie Andelman said that the NFL at that time was so weak and deluded that the Pats could be SB contenders in two years (listen starting at the 27:20 mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY5TgND48bE&t=64s

[Brian wolf]

Eddie must have really been impressed by Plunkett's rookie season. Probably jealous seeing the Dolphins become contenders under Shula so quickly ...

[7DnBrnc53]

Eddie must have really been impressed by Plunkett's rookie season. Probably jealous seeing the Dolphins become contenders under Shula so quickly ...

I know. They really weren't that high on Miami. Also, one caller didn't seem to be high on the AFC Central (didn't see the rise of the young Steelers coming, apparently).

[74_75_78_79_]

If 1971 was..."weak", which I'm not sure I feel that way about, then the year before was well weaker thus should be the season this thread is based on instead. The only team in 1970 that was championship-caliber-enough going into those playoffs was Minnesota. But they had their flaws as well; QB-spot/no more Kapp in-particular. And it seemed to show in their divisional loss at home to "good" San Fran. Though 11-3 instead of 12-2, the Vikes looked basically the same in '71, and were the only one in their division making the playoffs with Detroit falling to 7-6-1.

But both Super Bowl teams from the previous year, especially Dallas in the end, looked quite stronger along with Miami further improving and looking more like a contender as well. Kansas City was now back, though not completely like '69, and Washington in George Allen's first year looking like a contender from the get-go. Instead of the AFC Central winner having an 8-6 record, it was 9-5 (Cleveland) instead. Raiders didn't make the playoffs but were basically the same caliber as the year before; and instead of two winning teams in the NFC West, which San Fran won again (Rams just miss again), there were three (Atl 7-6-1).

[7DnBrnc53]

More on the young Steelers: This is from the sports page of the October 23, 1972 issue of The Pittsburgh Press:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... page&hl=en

Patriot GM Upton Bell, who was interviewed by Eddie Andelman and his associates on the above audio, seemed really disappointed, and acknowledged that his team didn't have the horses to compete (after NE's 33-3 loss at Pittsburgh in Week 6).

[Ten Minute Ticker]

If 1971 was..."weak", which I'm not sure I feel that way about, then the year before was well weaker thus should be the season this thread is based on instead. The only team in 1970 that was championship-caliber-enough going into those playoffs was Minnesota. But they had their flaws as well; QB-spot/no more Kapp in-particular. And it seemed to show in their divisional loss at home to "good" San Fran. Though 11-3 instead of 12-2, the Vikes looked basically the same in '71, and were the only one in their division making the playoffs with Detroit falling to 7-6-1.

But both Super Bowl teams from the previous year, especially Dallas in the end, looked quite stronger along with Miami further improving and looking more like a contender as well. Kansas City was now back, though not completely like '69, and Washington in George Allen's first year looking like a contender from the get-go. Instead of the AFC Central winner having an 8-6 record, it was 9-5 (Cleveland) instead. Raiders didn't make the playoffs but were basically the same caliber as the year before; and instead of two winning teams in the NFC West, which San Fran won again (Rams just miss again), there were three (Atl 7-6-1).

The 1970 season, and to a lesser extent, the 1971 season, demonstrated that while the best of the AFL could beat the best of the NFL in the Super Bowl, taken as a whole, the AFL teams had catching up to do to reach parity with the NFL teams.

The head-to-head between the AFL and NFL teams in 1970 is ugly for the AFL teams.

If you take out games against the Falcons and Saints, given that they were still essentially going through the process of shaking off being expansion teams in 1970, AFL teams were 14-38-3 against old line NFL teams. (Even if you add the Falcons and Saints back in the record is 18-39-3.) Oakland is the only AFL team to have a winning record against former NFL teams in 1970 and they were 3-2. Kansas City was 2-2-1 and everyone else is well under .500 against NFL opposition.

So while I’m not sure the early 70s were “weak”, they were definitely unbalanced.

[Brian wolf]

1971 was also the year the dead-ball era, 70-77, really started happening with more artificial turf, zone defenses and teams working on more cover-2 concepts, preventing cheap TD passes.
Teams wanted to run more anyway.

[7DnBrnc53]

1971 was also the year the dead-ball era, 70-77, really started happening with more artificial turf, zone defenses and teams working on more cover-2 concepts, preventing cheap TD passes.
Teams wanted to run more anyway.

Speaking of the zones, that's another thing that Andelman was complaining about. The game wasn't exciting enough in his eyes (probably because the zones were taking away the big play).

[SeahawkFever]

1971 was also the year the dead-ball era, 70-77, really started happening with more artificial turf, zone defenses and teams working on more cover-2 concepts, preventing cheap TD passes.
Teams wanted to run more anyway.

I might be inclined to group 1968 and 1969 with those eight years as well myself, though you are certainly in the dead ball era by the merger.

In 1968-1977, 25 passing touchdowns would’ve been considered very high. By my count it only happened eight times in that ten year span, with nobody doing so over 1970-1973.

[ShinobiMusashi]

If 1971 was..."weak", which I'm not sure I feel that way about, then the year before was well weaker thus should be the season this thread is based on instead. The only team in 1970 that was championship-caliber-enough going into those playoffs was Minnesota. But they had their flaws as well; QB-spot/no more Kapp in-particular. And it seemed to show in their divisional loss at home to "good" San Fran. Though 11-3 instead of 12-2, the Vikes looked basically the same in '71, and were the only one in their division making the playoffs with Detroit falling to 7-6-1.

But both Super Bowl teams from the previous year, especially Dallas in the end, looked quite stronger along with Miami further improving and looking more like a contender as well. Kansas City was now back, though not completely like '69, and Washington in George Allen's first year looking like a contender from the get-go. Instead of the AFC Central winner having an 8-6 record, it was 9-5 (Cleveland) instead. Raiders didn't make the playoffs but were basically the same caliber as the year before; and instead of two winning teams in the NFC West, which San Fran won again (Rams just miss again), there were three (Atl 7-6-1).

The 1970 season, and to a lesser extent, the 1971 season, demonstrated that while the best of the AFL could beat the best of the NFL in the Super Bowl, taken as a whole, the AFL teams had catching up to do to reach parity with the NFL teams.

The head-to-head between the AFL and NFL teams in 1970 is ugly for the AFL teams.

If you take out games against the Falcons and Saints, given that they were still essentially going through the process of shaking off being expansion teams in 1970, AFL teams were 14-38-3 against old line NFL teams. (Even if you add the Falcons and Saints back in the record is 18-39-3.) Oakland is the only AFL team to have a winning record against former NFL teams in 1970 and they were 3-2. Kansas City was 2-2-1 and everyone else is well under .500 against NFL opposition.

So while I’m not sure the early 70s were “weak”, they were definitely unbalanced.

The AFL made a big push and signed a bunch of NFL players around the time of the merger being mapped out and agreed upon. One of the deals they made was that the AFL had to give back the players they were taking and pay $20 million over 20 years in damages they had done to NFL teams. I had never known that until watching the AFL Full Color Football doc. I can remember Ditka and John Brodie being two names going to the AFL that their contracts had to be returned to their original NFL team. There were a lot of others for the NFL to want to make that a stipulation in the deal to get all their star players back must have really been something. This would have been around 1965-66 seasons when merger was being worked out. Got to wonder if that would have changed anything if the NFL allowed the AFL to keep their players they poached.