Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnH19 wrote:My problem with the '69 Chiefs being called the best single season AFL team is that they finished second in their division and then they benefited greatly from a horrible call by a sideline official and Lamonica's injury in the AFL title game.

This is a good point, something to ponder. Getting swept by Raiders during regular season was on the brain when 'maybe' considering them. The way they game-planned and played against a super Vikings team, and IMO the game not being an upset, and also feeling the Raiders themselves wouldn't have been able to beat them (JMO), is what draws my attention.

JohnH19 wrote:I think I might have to give the nod to the '68 Jets.

If not #1, Jets are at least right up there.

ChrisBabcock wrote:Without putting too much thought into this...

1. 1967 Raiders
2. 1968 Raiders
3. 1969 Chiefs
4. 1964 Bills
5. 1968 Jets
6. 1969 Raiders
7. 1963 Chargers
8. 1966 Chiefs
9. 1962 Texans
10. 1961 Oilers
11. 1961 Chargers
12. 1966 Bills
13. 1965 Bills
14. 1965 Chargers
15. 1960 Oilers
16. 1964 Chargers
17. 1962 Oilers
18. 1960 Chargers
19. 1967 Oilers
20. 1963 Patriots

All three late-'60s Raider squads could arguably be in top 5 or close enough to it. 1960/'61 Oilers? I would guess both be the 'worst' of the winners, and possbily lower than most runner-ups, if only because AFL was brand spanking new at the time. Or is that a wrong assessment?

I would guess both be the 'worst' of the winners, and possbily lower than most runner-ups, if only because AFL was brand spanking new at the time. Or is that a wrong assessment?

This is true. Their offense through the air was impressive enough with Blanda/Groman/Hennigan. But who had a decent enough pass D in the early AFL to stop that? Were they that good or was the rest of the league that bad. hmmmmm.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

I would guess both be the 'worst' of the winners, and possbily lower than most runner-ups, if only because AFL was brand spanking new at the time. Or is that a wrong assessment?

This is true. Their offense through the air was impressive enough with Blanda/Groman/Hennigan. But who had a decent enough pass D in the early AFL to stop that? Were they that good or was the rest of the league that bad. hmmmmm.

Pass defense was really bad in the AFL back then. It was essentially the last area in which AFL looked for players. At the beginning, they went almost entirely for offense to attract fans. Then, as the league became more established, they began to think about defensive linemen and linebackers. Then they finally got to DBs.

rhickok1109 wrote:

ChrisBabcock wrote:

I would guess both be the 'worst' of the winners, and possbily lower than most runner-ups, if only because AFL was brand spanking new at the time. Or is that a wrong assessment?

This is true. Their offense through the air was impressive enough with Blanda/Groman/Hennigan. But who had a decent enough pass D in the early AFL to stop that? Were they that good or was the rest of the league that bad. hmmmmm.

Pass defense was really bad in the AFL back then. It was essentially the last area in which AFL looked for players. At the beginning, they went almost entirely for offense to attract fans. Then, as the league became more established, they began to think about defensive linemen and linebackers. Then they finally got to DBs.

Which begs to question - is the often mentioned hypo-'Super Bowl' between Chargers & Bears even worth analyzing? Would that Charger D have at all been able to stop Chicago (or Hornung-less GB)? 'Bills vs Packers' seems to never get suggested but perhaps should being that the AFL further matured and if Bills beat Chargers in '64/'65, wouldn't that make them better than the heralded '63 version as well? Could it be that any of the late-'60s Charger squads, despite not making AFLCG, also be better than '63? Again, this is based on the league further progressing by then. Or does that '63 installment deserve the kudos it has received (despite AFL still being new, Raider sweep, they being pitted against 7-6-1 Pats)?

FWIW, Lance Alworth maintained in interviews I've seen that the 1963 Chargers had "more talent" than the 1971 Cowboys.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote: Pass defense was really bad in the AFL back then. It was essentially the last area in which AFL looked for players. At the beginning, they went almost entirely for offense to attract fans. Then, as the league became more established, they began to think about defensive linemen and linebackers. Then they finally got to DBs.

Which begs to question - is the often mentioned hypo-'Super Bowl' between Chargers & Bears even worth analyzing? Would that Charger D have at all been able to stop Chicago (or Hornung-less GB)? 'Bills vs Packers' seems to never get suggested but perhaps should being that the AFL further matured and if Bills beat Chargers in '64/'65, wouldn't that make them better than the heralded '63 version as well? Could it be that any of the late-'60s Charger squads, despite not making AFLCG, also be better than '63? Again, this is based on the league further progressing by then. Or does that '63 installment deserve the kudos it has received (despite AFL still being new, Raider sweep, they being pitted against 7-6-1 Pats)?

Instead of looking at the Bears' offense against the Chargers' defense, I'd look at the other matchup. I think the Bears might well have come up with 7 or 8 interceptions in that hypothetical Super Bowl. Rote threw a lot of INTs (5.9% that season and 6.6% for his career), and Hadl was even worse that season (9.4%; 5.7 for his career). The Bears had a great ball-hawking defense, with 36 INTs. All four DBs had 6 or more INTs. I think Rote would have had a real problem throwing against their man-to-man defense; AFL teams mostly played zone in those days because their CBs weren't very good.

The Bills had a better chance against the 64 Browns than they did the 65 Packers. I still a 64 Super Bowl would have been close, but a 65 Super Bowl would have been a blowout. The Bills were without their top three wide receivers that year, and though I like Billy Joe, he was no Cookie Gilchrist.

If you talk to the 66 Bills, they almost to a man say they would have matched up better against the Packers than the Chiefs did. Maybe so, but the Bills were a team in decline by then. Probably wouldn't have done much better than the Chiefs ...

I agree 100% Jeff. The 1964 Bills were the AFL's best chance to defeat the NFL champion, until 1968. Cookie Gilchrist was not as good as Jim Brown, but in 1964 Buffalo had the AFL's best run defense, and Cleveland had the NFL's worst run defense. I think you can call that Brown-Gilchrist matchup a draw (when factoring in the defenses they were facing.)
Of course, if Cleveland played the way they did against Baltimore, then Buffalo probably wouldn't have had much of a chance at all.

The 1965-66 Bills were fine teams, but not up to the standard of 1964. It really is amazing how they won the 1965 title without their top three skill position players of the precious year.

It really is amazing how they won the 1965 title without their top three skill position players of the precious year.

That combined with the fact that the Chargers were MUCH improved from the previous year. They had the league's top O and D. Lowe had probably his best season running the ball.

"First steroid team"? Here's an article...

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3866837