'67 Raiders vs the rest of the NFL...

[74_75_78_79_]

Quite some time ago, I started this thread...

viewtopic.php?p=12616#p12616

One of Seahawk Fever's recent threads inspires this one as well, pointing out that the closest the Raiders are to being '#1' in any given year according to the formula is '67 itself where they finished second to the Colts (I still can't believe not a single '#1' finish for the Raiders).

Anyways, as for the other NFL contenders worthy of mention other than Green Bay, you - again - got the runner-up in Landry's Cowboys who again just barely lost to the Pack. And there, of course, are also those Colts along with the Rams...both finishing 11-1-2! Let's throw in the Century champ, Browns, who finished 9-5 just like Dallas also did (I keep forgetting Big D finishing at just that record; always thought it was higher).

I always felt that Dallas beats both KC & Oakland in respective hypo SBs I & II; and by convincing-enough margin. Many of you in here have shown disagreement with that. I just still lean on (and maybe I'm wrong) that the AFL, despite Oakland looking quite dominant within their league at 13-1, still wasn't ready just yet to hoist it all up (next year).

Raiders beating the Browns in '67? I think so; even at Cleveland. Colts/Rams? That's the more-intriguing one! I'm going to lean on both NFL regular-season powerhouses...but in the regular-season! In a playoff game, however? Maybe a different story (or maybe not).

Thoughts?

[Brian wolf]

I feel the Colts, Rams or Cowboys beat the Raiders. Not sure about the Browns. Bill Miller was a good receiver with Biletnikoff in 1967, but the Raiders didn't play Warren Wells much. He might have been a factor against GB. They ran the ball well but Daniels missed the SB. I don't think their offensive line handles the pass rush of the Colts, Rams or Cowboys.

[CSKreager]

Dallas was not as good as 66/68/69

I mean they lost 5 games for a reason

Plus they were a young team like Oakland, unlike the AARP Packers

[Brian wolf]

True CS ... yet had Landry and the coaches not called a crappy loose, prevent-style defense, the Packers probably don't score at the end. I know it was the frozen tundra and it took guts and toughness to get through this game but some Cowboys weren't feeling it ... The Super Bowl would have been different.

[74_75_78_79_]

I opine that the '68 and, more-so, the '69 Raiders (Madden, even as a rookie, quite an upgrade at HC) were even better than '67. It's just that they couldn't finish the deal within their own league which, itself, got even stronger and now "ready" for its champion to upend the other league champ! The Jets, who were better than their record, and then the Chiefs the following year were much greater obstacles. Maybe the Raiders were better each year. But beating the Jets a second time a tough task, and beating the Chiefs a third time in a row an even greater one, obviously!

How does Raiders vs Colts turn out in '68?

How does Raiders vs Vikings turn out in '69 (viewtopic.php?t=3701)?

Both questions are always quite intriguing!

[SeahawkFever]

Quite some time ago, I started this thread...

viewtopic.php?p=12616#p12616

One of Seahawk Fever's recent threads inspires this one as well, pointing out that the closest the Raiders are to being '#1' in any given year according to the formula is '67 itself where they finished second to the Colts (I still can't believe not a single '#1' finish for the Raiders).

Anyways, as for the other NFL contenders worthy of mention other than Green Bay, you - again - got the runner-up in Landry's Cowboys who again just barely lost to the Pack. And there, of course, are also those Colts along with the Rams...both finishing 11-1-2! Let's throw in the Century champ, Browns, who finished 9-5 just like Dallas also did (I keep forgetting Big D finishing at just that record; always thought it was higher).

I always felt that Dallas beats both KC & Oakland in respective hypo SBs I & II; and by convincing-enough margin. Many of you in here have shown disagreement with that. I just still lean on (and maybe I'm wrong) that the AFL, despite Oakland looking quite dominant within their league at 13-1, still wasn't ready just yet to hoist it all up (next year).

Raiders beating the Browns in '67? I think so; even at Cleveland. Colts/Rams? That's the more-intriguing one! I'm going to lean on both NFL regular-season powerhouses...but in the regular-season! In a playoff game, however? Maybe a different story (or maybe not).

Thoughts?

I will also point out that the Raiders in 1974 finished second in my stat to the 1974 Redskins, and the 2002 Raiders also came in second to the 2002 Eagles.

But 1967 has the highest raw statistical separation of the three, which isn’t too surprising when you consider that teams separated themselves to greater degrees the further back you go.

[74_75_78_79_]

Quite some time ago, I started this thread...

viewtopic.php?p=12616#p12616

One of Seahawk Fever's recent threads inspires this one as well, pointing out that the closest the Raiders are to being '#1' in any given year according to the formula is '67 itself where they finished second to the Colts (I still can't believe not a single '#1' finish for the Raiders).

Anyways, as for the other NFL contenders worthy of mention other than Green Bay, you - again - got the runner-up in Landry's Cowboys who again just barely lost to the Pack. And there, of course, are also those Colts along with the Rams...both finishing 11-1-2! Let's throw in the Century champ, Browns, who finished 9-5 just like Dallas also did (I keep forgetting Big D finishing at just that record; always thought it was higher).

I always felt that Dallas beats both KC & Oakland in respective hypo SBs I & II; and by convincing-enough margin. Many of you in here have shown disagreement with that. I just still lean on (and maybe I'm wrong) that the AFL, despite Oakland looking quite dominant within their league at 13-1, still wasn't ready just yet to hoist it all up (next year).

Raiders beating the Browns in '67? I think so; even at Cleveland. Colts/Rams? That's the more-intriguing one! I'm going to lean on both NFL regular-season powerhouses...but in the regular-season! In a playoff game, however? Maybe a different story (or maybe not).

Thoughts?

I will also point out that the Raiders in 1974 finished second in my stat to the 1974 Redskins, and the 2002 Raiders also came in second to the 2002 Eagles.

But 1967 has the highest raw statistical separation of the three, which isn’t too surprising when you consider that teams separated themselves to greater degrees the further back you go.

I momentarily forgot about '74 & '02 each being #2 as well upon first starting this thread. In addition to what I just opined about '68 & '69, the '74 Raiders may have been a stronger team than '67 as well. It's just that they ran into a team that, immediately, went from 'very good' to Dynastic. Some say they were "worn out" after 'Sea of Hands' but, though not too unworthy of at least a mention. I respectfully disagree (Steelers finally arrived, plain and simple).

2002...they had the "bite" to them despite that 4-game skid early on which ultimately forged them to that "just" 11-5, but still top-seed, finish. I thought going into that Super Bowl that it'd be a good game; contrast-in-styles. Maybe had Jon still been onboard for at least that one more year they close the deal as well as avoid that skid along the way. Perhaps finish 12-4 or 13-3 which, in the latter case, would have made for the best record in the league.

The esteemed '76 installment...non-statistically they are quite stronger than '67 as I'm sure most, practically all, would agree. 13-1, but upon further inspection, not a smorgasbord of lopsided victories; not really until the final month of the season. They did beat Pittsburgh in the opener, swept 9-5 Denver, and walloped 10-4 Cincy on MNF penultimate week (instead of "letting" them win so the 'Burgh would get knocked out), but I'm guessing that one real lopsided loss, and to a quality Pats team, is what prevented them from finishing Numero Uno there. Yes, the Steelers real sickly dominant down that stretch, but admittedly vs soft competition barring their sweep over Cincy. And they still did lose four games to Oakland's just one.

End of day, those '67 Raiders - though a juggernaut and the AFL having come such a long way at that point - were more dominant strictly within their very 1967 AFL league than they were in the even more, vitally, improved AFL the two following years along with other super teams they had the post-merger years now being in...the NFL.

Staistically-speaking, that is.

[Saban1]

I think that the 1967 Raiders would have had a difficult time against the Rams, and also the Colts and Cowboys that year. As for the 1967 Browns, I think the Raiders beat them although Cleveland would have a better chance to win at home. It probably depends on how badly the Browns need to win the game. Cleveland did win their division by 2 games and gave away another game to the Eagles.

If the Browns played Dallas the week before, then Oakland would win easily. If Cleveland played the week after their 55 to 7 debacle with Green Bay, then they might play tough against the Raiders, like they did against Minnesota in 1967.

Of course, I have spent a lot of time knocking the 1967 Browns on another thread, due to them having a very bad year compared to surrounding seasons. So, more often than not, I believe that Oakland beats Cleveland in 1967.