'60s AFL Chargers

[74_75_78_79_]

Had themselves quite a run that first half of the decade! Five League Championship Game appearances, but just one title won.

Had the players, had the coaching. What was it that caused them to come up just short those years surrounding 1963? Were titles "left on the table", or do you feel that those four LCG-opponents just so happened to be the better team after all?

Takes on this and just the franchise in-general the entire decade whilst in the AFL, late-'60s as well are what I'd like to hear your takes on.

Thanks!


I've already given my take on '63, thinking the AFL, including they, weren't just yet 'ready' to match the NFL's best (maybe Buf vs Clev the following year). Always feeling that the Bears beat SD lopsided in '63 in a simple 'defense-beats-offense' affair as the case with SF over Mia '84/Sea over Den '13, etc. But what you I know? Maybe too hard on them, holding their getting swept by the Raiders and beating 7-win-or-less teams against them.

Losing to Houston again in '61 seems understandable. But holding that '94 SF-precursor offensive juggernaut to just ten points and still not winning it (Pats/Rams 2018-like)??

[JeffreyMiller]

After 1963, they ran into the meat grinder that was the Buffalo Bills defense. One TD in eight quarters ...

[ChrisBabcock]

The 1963 Chargers would have given the Bears a run for their money in a hypothetical Super Bowl. Maybe or maybe not the leagues as a whole were on par talent wise by that season, but I feel the too teams were about even. This book is a great read...

https://www.amazon.com/Uncrowned-Champs ... 201&sr=8-1

[7DnBrnc53]

The 1963 Chargers would have given the Bears a run for their money in a hypothetical Super Bowl. Maybe or maybe not the leagues as a whole were on par talent wise by that season, but I feel the too teams were about even. This book is a great read...

https://www.amazon.com/Uncrowned-Champs ... 201&sr=8-1

I agree. The team may have been on steroids: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3866837

[ChrisBabcock]

The 1963 Chargers would have given the Bears a run for their money in a hypothetical Super Bowl. Maybe or maybe not the leagues as a whole were on par talent wise by that season, but I feel the too teams were about even. This book is a great read...

https://www.amazon.com/Uncrowned-Champs ... 201&sr=8-1

I agree. The team may have been on steroids: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3866837

They were. That is documented in the aforementioned book.

[SeahawkFever]

The 1963 Chargers would have given the Bears a run for their money in a hypothetical Super Bowl. Maybe or maybe not the leagues as a whole were on par talent wise by that season, but I feel the too teams were about even. This book is a great read...

https://www.amazon.com/Uncrowned-Champs ... 201&sr=8-1

The question I have with that matchup is who had the better “worse” component:

San Diego’s defense or Chicago’s offense?

Chargers had a great offense and the Bears also had a great defense, though the latter was older if I’m not mistaken.

[JohnTurney]

I agree. The team may have been on steroids: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3866837

on that staff, Chuck Noll

[74_75_78_79_]

The 1963 Chargers would have given the Bears a run for their money in a hypothetical Super Bowl. Maybe or maybe not the leagues as a whole were on par talent wise by that season, but I feel the too teams were about even. This book is a great read...

https://www.amazon.com/Uncrowned-Champs ... 201&sr=8-1

The question I have with that matchup is who had the better “worse” component:

San Diego’s defense or Chicago’s offense?

Chargers had a great offense and the Bears also had a great defense, though the latter was older if I’m not mistaken.

Many in here, and outside of this site, opining that SD would have given the Bears a game is what keep the '63 Chargers heads-above-water with me credibility-wise. Maybe I should give them more credit, but any mere credit I give them is because of many of you in here.

The Bears' O, yes, was really nothing special. MIddling all-around, I'd guess, whereas the 2000 Ravens at least did have a solid, not mIddling, run-game. Perhaps it would have to be San Diego's defense vs Chicago's offense that would be the main reason as to why the Chargers would possibly give the Bears a game. Yes, that Chargers-D is historically underrated.

Still, I can't help but to think that SD was even better in '64 & '65 if only because the entire league along with they got even better; just that Buffalo was even better than them both years. And though its two years earlier, Year Two of the AFL, maybe (maybe not) the 12-2 (11-0 start) Chargers of '61 may have been even better than '63 with those '61 Oilers being even better. Maybe the two '62 AFCCG-participants were each better. This is where you all simply have a chance to school me and maybe elevate my current 'head-above-water' opinion on the '63 Chargers to me actually seeing them as a team that could have given those Bears hell. Maybe inspiring me to not make that big a deal of they getting swept by the Raiders and only beating 7-win-or-less teams.

I have said this before. A part of my reason for 'rooting' for the Bears here is due to my fascination over George Halas, 40+years in the game, winning another World Championship in the midst of the unraveling of the modern era/in-midst of the Lombardi Era. I likened it to Louie Armstrong, coming out of nowhere with "Hello Dolly", momentarily knocking the Beatles off the #1 spot in the midst of Beatlemania, then falling back off as Beatlemania continues on back atop the chart; more importantly, helping to further define the '60s-and-beyond. I simply can't help but to smile on that '63 Bears squad. Nothing against that '63 squad HC'd by SID, mind you (and with Chuck Noll as a defensive coach), but perhaps this is just a case of biased me rooting for the old guard instead of the new.

One thing that was mentioned here previously, forgot who the poster was nor what thread it was on, that if Green Bay simply made it to another NFLCG in '63 and three-peated, especially beating NYG lopsided, that there wouldn't even be a debate today over who the better team was. But because it was a team that 'just' had defense (albeit an All-Time Great one), and it was a 'one-year-wonder' thing, that this debate does, indeed, exist. Had G-men pulled it off instead, maybe it would also be a debate as well between NYG & SD ("oh, Giants won because they didn't have to play Green Bay; they're nothing special. Chargers may have beaten them").

For right now still, its me thinking the Bears win lopsided, Giants beat them lopsided too, and especially Green Bay (and especially MORE-so with Hornung).

I agree. The team may have been on steroids: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=3866837

on that staff, Chuck Noll

Yeah, can't look away from or sweep it under the rug, actually encouraging/distributing it to the players or not. He was there then, he was there in the '70s with his Steelers as it was going on. However, it wasn't officially illegal yet. I don't where I read or heard it, but one of his moments of actually yelling at his players in the locker room, he said something along the lines of (paraphrasing), "All you care about is taking steroids!"

[Sonny9]

Bears win based on turnovers +29 vs +9 imo
Both teams outgained their opponents by 1000 yards. The Bears did it in a better league

Special teams no info on touchbacks
Bears Punting 2974 yards - 277 yds given up= 2697/64 punts =42.14
Chargers Punting 2316 yards - 204 yds given up = 2112/60 punts =35.2
neither had a punt blocked

SD returned 22 of 51 punts
Chi returned 30 of 73 punts
both returned about 40% of the punts
Bears got 16 more yards on 8 more returns

Chargers averaged 6 more yards per ko return
"The Bears had 26 ko returns on 38 kickoffs. Chargers 52 ko returns on 62 kickoffs
The kickoffs to the Bears, resulted in more touchbacks."

Kicking FGs Blair vs LeClerc. Was gonna say based on the numbers, slight edge to SD BUT SD has to be a better place to kick FGS than the cold windy city
SD opponents FG% 54 Chicagos opponents FG% 35
Jencks was 1-10 for Chicago and was replaced right before the halfway point although he did kick XPs

A strange thing I noticed about the Bears. The committed more penalties than their opponents 92-804 vs 78-718 yet the Bears had more 1st downs on penalties by a large margin 32-18

"edit in quotes"

[JohnTurney]

Special teams no info on touchbacks
Bears Punting 2974 yards - 277 yds given up= 2697/64 punts =42.14
Chargers Punting 2316 yards - 204 yds given up = 2112/60 punts =35.2
neither had a punt blocked

Bobby Joe Green had 8 touchbacks
Paul Macguire had 6