The AFL's Super Bowl wins in 1968 and 1969 have cemented the idea over time that the AFL had achieved parity with the NFL by the time the merger took place in 1970.
However, the records of the AFC teams in 1970 weren't good against NFC and former NFL teams in the AFC.
The old line AFL teams went 9-21-1 against the NFC teams.
The original NFL teams that joined the AFC were 18-10-1 against AFL teams with only the rebuilding Steelers having a losing record at 4-5 against AFL teams. So all told? NFL teams from 1969 were 39-19-2 against AFL teams from 1969.
The difference in the standings is striking. In the NFC, only the Eagles and Saints failed to win six games. Only five AFC teams achieved winning records with one of those being the Colts.
It's clear that the best AFL teams could beat the best NFL teams, that is not in dispute as it was proven on the field.
How are the AFC struggles in the first couple years of the merger (it gradually got better as the common draft took hold) properly viewed historically? It seems to me that the "parity" is a bit overstated. The AFL teams undeniably struggled once merged.
1970 AFC, how is it viewed in hindsight?
-
Ten Minute Ticker
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:30 am
Re: 1970 AFC, how is it viewed in hindsight?
I think it was probably just a coincidence in where all of the teams were at.
The Bengals and Dolphins were far better expansion teams than the Falcons and Saints. Does that point to the AFL being a stronger league?
I don't know, looking at 1969 it kind of seems like the AFL was better. The Vikings and Rams were not as dynamic offensively, Cowboys had pass coverage issues, Browns weren't dominant like they had been. The Chiefs look like a great all around team, Raiders just as good, and you've got the Jets as well.
I think, at the time, people felt the Chiefs were a good organization, would continue to be a force. That didn't happen, a business guy had too much say in personnel and the talent dried up. Jets were good but didn't have the depth to stay good. Oilers had been at least decent/solid but their management just collapsed. Chargers had similar issues. I don't think it was an AFL issue, just an individual team issue.
1970 was the fourth year of the draft. Average NFL career is only four years. It was more than enough time for a team to build a base. Some teams just sucked at it, and some of them were AFL teams.
The Bengals and Dolphins were far better expansion teams than the Falcons and Saints. Does that point to the AFL being a stronger league?
I don't know, looking at 1969 it kind of seems like the AFL was better. The Vikings and Rams were not as dynamic offensively, Cowboys had pass coverage issues, Browns weren't dominant like they had been. The Chiefs look like a great all around team, Raiders just as good, and you've got the Jets as well.
I think, at the time, people felt the Chiefs were a good organization, would continue to be a force. That didn't happen, a business guy had too much say in personnel and the talent dried up. Jets were good but didn't have the depth to stay good. Oilers had been at least decent/solid but their management just collapsed. Chargers had similar issues. I don't think it was an AFL issue, just an individual team issue.
1970 was the fourth year of the draft. Average NFL career is only four years. It was more than enough time for a team to build a base. Some teams just sucked at it, and some of them were AFL teams.