Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

and the AFL title game is 10-4 New York vs. 12-1-1 Oakland at Oakland. The Jets had lost at home to the Raiders 27-14 a few weeks earlier. Warren Wells had bombed the Jets secondary with 5 catches for 152 yards and 2 TDs. Do the Jets have any chance of defeating Oakland in the AFL title game? Don Maynard is not 100%.

If the Jets do win, do you see them defeating the Vikings? If the Raiders win, do you see them defeating the Vikings? If the Chiefs are shutout of the postseason completely, do we see the processional line of Chief players getting inducted into Canton?

Last question, what was the reasoning for adjusting the AFL adjusting its playoff format in 1969? If they were worried about the West being stronger, then its bad timing because the East team (Jets) had just won the Super Bowl while the two previous West entrants had been routed.

Bryan wrote:Last question, what was the reasoning for adjusting the AFL adjusting its playoff format in 1969? If they were worried about the West being stronger, then its bad timing because the East team (Jets) had just won the Super Bowl while the two previous West entrants had been routed.

The decision--which was made the day before SB III, had Rozelle saying, "It will insure that the best AFL club gets to the Super Bowl. It will also increase the interest at the end of the season." There were complaints that by Thanksgiving 1968, only four AFL teams had a shot at postseason, in comparison to nine in the NFL--although there were six additional teams in the elder league.

Bryan wrote:and the AFL title game is 10-4 New York vs. 12-1-1 Oakland at Oakland. The Jets had lost at home to the Raiders 27-14 a few weeks earlier. Warren Wells had bombed the Jets secondary with 5 catches for 152 yards and 2 TDs. Do the Jets have any chance of defeating Oakland in the AFL title game? Don Maynard is not 100%.

If the Jets do win, do you see them defeating the Vikings? If the Raiders win, do you see them defeating the Vikings? If the Chiefs are shutout of the postseason completely, do we see the processional line of Chief players getting inducted into Canton?

Last question, what was the reasoning for adjusting the AFL adjusting its playoff format in 1969? If they were worried about the West being stronger, then its bad timing because the East team (Jets) had just won the Super Bowl while the two previous West entrants had been routed.

This was a little before my time, but the impression that I get is that the Raiders felt overconfident against KC, and they probably feel the same after beating the Jets at their place as you said (along with a less than 100% Maynard). However, I still think that the Raiders beat the Jets by 7 because the motivation from the year before is still there.

In SB IV, though, I think the Vikings beat the Raiders. Oakland's offense wouldn't have confused the Vikings as KC's did, and they didn't have as good of a defense.

Here's another thought about that playoff: What if the AFL took the two best non-division winners instead of the two second place teams? If they did, SD would have made the playoffs instead of the Oilers (8-5 to 6-6-1).

They didn't have home field advantage in those days, so here is my guess is to how they would have seeded this. For starters, they would have let the West's second place team go to the East's first place team (KC to NYJ), and then SD would have went to Oakland.

The Chargers played Oakland tough late in the year. If they upset the Raiders, they go to KC for the AFL Title Game. They probably lose, but that may change a few things going forward, especially if they win some games in 1970 that they could have, and the Raiders didn't have some fluke wins that they got. Maybe Alworth doesn't get traded to Dallas in 71. Also, Harland Svare may not have been hired, and that George Allen-esque trading fest in 1972 is probably avoided.

7DnBrnc53 wrote:The Chargers played Oakland tough late in the year. If they upset the Raiders, they go to KC for the AFL Title Game. They probably lose, but that may change a few things going forward, especially if they win some games in 1970 that they could have, and the Raiders didn't have some fluke wins that they got. Maybe Alworth doesn't get traded to Dallas in 71. Also, Harland Svare may not have been hired, and that George Allen-esque trading fest in 1972 is probably avoided.

Of course, the three ties and four losses by three points or less in 1970 are countered somewhat by the three straight wins they had to start off November. They inexplicably (as eight-point underdogs) thrash (on the road) a 4-2 Cleveland team that had just come off a 28-0 domination of Miami, then hold on to beat Denver by three and the Pats by two.