Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Bryan wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:There aren’t many, if any at all, who actually feel these squads were better than Green Bay either of those years, but is there anyone in here who feel that just, maybe, these squads might actually be the best in the AFL’s ten-year history?

Thoughts?

When you say "best in AFL history", do you mean if the 1964-65 Bills played the 1968-69 Chiefs, the Bills would prevail?

I think the number of great players in the late-60's AFL was superior to the number of great players at previous points of AFL history. I think it would be possible for the last place 1969 Dolphins to defeat the 1960 Oilers.

To answer your question, I think the 1967-69 Raiders were the 'best team' in AFL history, but if you have to pick one year it would be the 1969 Chiefs. I think the most dominant AFL team for a season was the 1963 Chargers, because they were so much better relative to the other 1963 AFL teams in terms of talent and coaching. It's not all that surprising the Chargers won the title game by such a large margin.

The 64 Bills might be the only AFL team that had the best offensive player (Gilchrist) and best defensive player (Sestak) in the league for that season. They were very good, but in a roundabout way I think if the Colts had beaten the Browns in the 64 title game, there wouldn't be as much discussion about the 64 Bills winning a mythical Super Bowl. The 1964 Colts were statistically one of the best teams in NFL history. But I guess they also said that about the 1968 Colts, and that didn't turn out well.

I think you also need to look at it from the perspective of how the 64 Bills were built. They were very much an-NFL style team, concentrating on the run first but also possessing a lethal deep threat with Elbert Dubenion (and Glenn Bass was no slouch). They had a solid defensive front seven, and their DBs were not too shabby either (they had Saimes and Byrd back there, after all ...). They were the perfect matchup for the Browns that year. As I stated in my previous post, the Bills' best chance of beating an NFL team was that year. Doesn't mean they were the best AFL team ever. It's quite obvious that the talent level of the league rose from year to year, and the five years between the Bills of 64 and the Chiefs of 69 saw a tremendous upswing.

The thing that would have doomed the 1964 Bills would have been turnovers. Their offense gained the most yards, scored the most points, and had the most turnovers of any AFL team. Interesting hat trick. (I know the 2001 Rams also pulled it off.)

In an old thread in the other forum, I made a case that the 1964 Bills would have been the best chance for a pre-1966 AFL champion to beat their NFL counterpart. The Browns had the worst run defense in the NFL and the best runner of all time. The Bills had the best run defense in the AFL, and the second or third best runner in pro football. Cookie Gilchrist was not as great as Jim Brown, but he was an excellent back in his own right, and considering the quality of the opposition, the two teams running games might have been evenly matched.

conace21 wrote:The thing that would have doomed the 1964 Bills would have been turnovers. Their offense gained the most yards, scored the most points, and had the most turnovers of any AFL team. Interesting hat trick. (I know the 2001 Rams also pulled it off.)

In an old thread in the other forum, I made a case that the 1964 Bills would have been the best chance for a pre-1966 AFL champion to beat their NFL counterpart. The Browns had the worst run defense in the NFL and the best runner of all time. The Bills had the best run defense in the AFL, and the second or third best runner in pro football. Cookie Gilchrist was not as great as Jim Brown, but he was an excellent back in his own right, and considering the quality of the opposition, the two teams running games might have been evenly matched.

Frankly, saying that the Bills had the best run defense in the AFL doesn't mean very much to me. Their run defense would probably have been sixth or worse in the NFL. The Browns scored 27 points against the NFL's best defense to win the title and they averaged nearly 30 points during the regular season. I think they would have scored at least that many against the Bills, probably more, and only God knows how many INTs Kemp would have thrown. It all adds up to a rout by the Browns.

The Patriots that year - with their 9 All-Stars, 5 on them on defense - beat the Bills on the road in Week #10, 36-28, and following a bye week played them a second time (at Fenway) in the finale for the de facto Eastern division championship game. Pats lost convincingly but had they won, it would have been an AFL Championship Game-rematch from the previous year - they vs SD; both splitting in ’64, road-team winning both. It was obviously Boston’s best AFL squad even though they didn’t make it to the title game like the year before when they actually finished 7-6-1 (but with 11 All-Stars).

On the NFL side that year you had the 9-3-2 Cards who finished a half game behind Cleveland in the division but did win the season series over them, 1-0-1. Colts weren’t far from traveling to StL instead.

rhickok1109 wrote:

conace21 wrote:The thing that would have doomed the 1964 Bills would have been turnovers. Their offense gained the most yards, scored the most points, and had the most turnovers of any AFL team. Interesting hat trick. (I know the 2001 Rams also pulled it off.)

In an old thread in the other forum, I made a case that the 1964 Bills would have been the best chance for a pre-1966 AFL champion to beat their NFL counterpart. The Browns had the worst run defense in the NFL and the best runner of all time. The Bills had the best run defense in the AFL, and the second or third best runner in pro football. Cookie Gilchrist was not as great as Jim Brown, but he was an excellent back in his own right, and considering the quality of the opposition, the two teams running games might have been evenly matched.

Frankly, saying that the Bills had the best run defense in the AFL doesn't mean very much to me. Their run defense would probably have been sixth or worse in the NFL. The Browns scored 27 points against the NFL's best defense to win the title and they averaged nearly 30 points during the regular season. I think they would have scored at least that many against the Bills, probably more, and only God knows how many INTs Kemp would have thrown. It all adds up to a rout by the Browns.

Very few people thought the Jets had a chance against the Colts ... which is why they play the games! It's all speculative at this point anyway. Great thread!!

rhickok1109 wrote:

conace21 wrote:The thing that would have doomed the 1964 Bills would have been turnovers. Their offense gained the most yards, scored the most points, and had the most turnovers of any AFL team. Interesting hat trick. (I know the 2001 Rams also pulled it off.)

In an old thread in the other forum, I made a case that the 1964 Bills would have been the best chance for a pre-1966 AFL champion to beat their NFL counterpart. The Browns had the worst run defense in the NFL and the best runner of all time. The Bills had the best run defense in the AFL, and the second or third best runner in pro football. Cookie Gilchrist was not as great as Jim Brown, but he was an excellent back in his own right, and considering the quality of the opposition, the two teams running games might have been evenly matched.

Frankly, saying that the Bills had the best run defense in the AFL doesn't mean very much to me. Their run defense would probably have been sixth or worse in the NFL. The Browns scored 27 points against the NFL's best defense to win the title and they averaged nearly 30 points during the regular season. I think they would have scored at least that many against the Bills, probably more, and only God knows how many INTs Kemp would have thrown. It all adds up to a rout by the Browns.

This implies that the Bills superior defenders were simply above average... going against below-average competition. I dont think that was true in 1964. The best evidence I have for it is the defensive players who pplayed in the combined NFL, and did so past their prime. Ron McDole was Buffalo's third or fourth best defensive player... but he was good enough to start 8 years for the Over the Hill Gang. The Redskins were a top 5 (scoring) defensive team his first 4 years. Ron McDole could play with anyone. So could George Saimes, Tom Sestak, Booker Edgerson, Mike Stratton....

conace21 wrote:This implies that the Bills superior defenders were simply above average... going against below-average competition. I dont think that was true in 1964. The best evidence I have for it is the defensive players who player in the combined NFL, and did so past their prime. Ron McDole was Buffalos third or fourth best defensive player... but he was good enough to start 8 years for the Over the Hill Gang. The Redskins were a top 5 (scoring) defensive team his first 4 years. Ron McDole could play with anyone. So could George Saimes, Tom Sestak, Booker Edgerson, Mike Stratton....

The 1964 Bills were the only team during the 1960's in either the NFL or AFL to allow less than 1000 yards rushing in a season. Even the great 1969 Vikings defense that allowed an astounding 3.4 yards per play still allowed over 1000 yards rushing. The 1964 Packers went 8-5-1 had a nice defense...2nd in pts allowed, 1st in yards allowed, 2nd in turnovers forced. The Packers allowed almost a half-yard less per play than the Bills on defense (4.1 vs. 4.5), yet they gave up 50% more rushing yards (1532 vs. 913) than the Bills. Is that a product of superior Bills defensive talent compared to the Packers, or a product of inferior competition? To put it another way, would anyone take the 1964 Bills defense over the 1964 Packers defense? Tom Sestak was a great individual player, but give me Willie Davis, Willie Wood, Herb Adderley and Dave Robinson instead of Ron McDole, George Saimes, Booker Edgerson and Mike Stratton.

conace21 wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:

conace21 wrote:The thing that would have doomed the 1964 Bills would have been turnovers. Their offense gained the most yards, scored the most points, and had the most turnovers of any AFL team. Interesting hat trick. (I know the 2001 Rams also pulled it off.)

In an old thread in the other forum, I made a case that the 1964 Bills would have been the best chance for a pre-1966 AFL champion to beat their NFL counterpart. The Browns had the worst run defense in the NFL and the best runner of all time. The Bills had the best run defense in the AFL, and the second or third best runner in pro football. Cookie Gilchrist was not as great as Jim Brown, but he was an excellent back in his own right, and considering the quality of the opposition, the two teams running games might have been evenly matched.

Frankly, saying that the Bills had the best run defense in the AFL doesn't mean very much to me. Their run defense would probably have been sixth or worse in the NFL. The Browns scored 27 points against the NFL's best defense to win the title and they averaged nearly 30 points during the regular season. I think they would have scored at least that many against the Bills, probably more, and only God knows how many INTs Kemp would have thrown. It all adds up to a rout by the Browns.

This implies that the Bills superior defenders were simply above average... going against below-average competition. I dont think that was true in 1964. The best evidence I have for it is the defensive players who player in the combined NFL, and did so past their prime. Ron McDole was Buffalos third or fourth best defensive player... but he was good enough to start 8 years for the Over the Hill Gang. The Redskins were a top 5 (scoring) defensive team his first 4 years. Ron McDole could play with anyone. So could George Saimes, Tom Sestak, Booker Edgerson, Mike Stratton....

This is an exercise I did a long time ago, possibly a couple of forum incarnations back...I compared the 1964 Bills' defense with the Packers' defense from the same season.

I think there's general agreement that Tom Sestak was the best player on the Bills' defense and it's possible that he could have beaten out Ron Kostelnik for one DT spot, but nobody on the Bills' roster was going to beat out Jordan, Aldridge, or Davis. I'm sure that McDole would have beaten out Lloyd Voss as a backup DE, but Keating wouldn't have made the roster (he would have been behind Jordan, Kostelnik, Sestak, and Hanner at DT and teams didn't keep 5 DTs in those days).

The Bills' LB corps was decidedly inferior to the Packers'. Stratton would probably have made the Packer roster as a backup, but he would have been the #5 LB behind Nitschke, Robinson, Currie, and Caffey.

Saimes was certainly the Bills' best DB, but he couldn't have beaten out Wood or Adderley.

It's possible that Edgerson might have started at cornerback for the Packers and Byrd probably could have made the roster as a backup.

So it looks to me as if two of the Bills might have been able to start for the Packers and three or four others would have made the roster as backups. That means that five or six of the Bills' defensive starters wouldn't even have made the team.

And the Packers didn't even have the NFL's best defense that year. Baltimore did, and the Cowboys, Lions, and Vikings weren't that far behind. My guess is that Buffalo's 1964 defense would have been 4th in the NFL, at the very best, and 8th or 9th, at the very worst.

I would say that McDole could beat out the young Aldridge. He stuck around in the NFL a lot longer than Aldridge did. Keating wouldn't have made the roster, but he was a backup on the Bills. Jim Dunaway would have beaten out the aging Hanner.

Saimes wouldn't have had to beat out a cornerback like Adderley. He would have beaten out the rookie Tom Brown to start alongside Wood.

John Tracey had started for the #1 Cardinals defense in 1960. He could have made the Packers at least as a backup.

I would count 4 Bills starting and at least 4 as backups.

Jeff Miller, thoughts?

Well, let's not forget that many of the players on the Bills defensive squad were drafted by NFL teams, who obviously thought highly enough of them to waste picks on them. So, from that stand point, I'd say many NFL scouts felt pretty strongly about their abilities. And though admittedly the AFL was not nearly as strong across the board as its senior counterpart by 1964, that doesn't mean many of the players could not have played in the "superior" league. I think it's a mistake to assume because guys like Stratton, Saimes, Byrd and Dunaway never played in the NFL that somehow makes them unworthy. NFL loyalists will go to great lengths to defend their turf, but the fact is it's all speculative. Maybe Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick could be great QBs in the right environment … who knows? There is a pair of rose colored glasses sitting on the night stand in every aging football fan's bedroom, and for NFL hardliners, the coloring can having a blinding effect.

Anyway, my assessment is thus … Sestak would have been an all-pro on any team. He was maybe the third or fourth best defensive tackle in pro football at that time, both leagues combined. Mike Stratton would have started for most NFL teams, with the possible exception of the Packers and one or two others. But he was a solid linebacker with the size and speed to play at a high level in either league. Butch Byrd was a prototype corner who was not only tough, but also a ball hawk. He easily could have started on many NFL teams. George Saimes was extremely smart and could have started on many teams. Better than Wood or Wilson? No, but how many starting NFL safeties played at that level? I would also propose Booker Edgerson as a possible starter, compared to some corners I have seen on film.

Then there is Ron McDole, who proved himself not only capable of starting in the NFL, but I'd say even improved once he got to the Redskins. His best years were his 15th and 16th seasons! And Jim Dunaway certainly had the size to play with anyone. Though he was a backup by then, and pretty worn down, he did play a role on the Dolphins undefeated team of 1972.