One of the ongoing themes of debate in professional football history is whether a championship team from one decade would beat another top team from a different era. Those discussions are fun, and can be applied in many different ways.
As for AFL teams, which championship teams would be the best? Would the 1960 Oilers beat the 1967 Raiders? Why? Why not? Here are two matchups that I would love to somehow see.
- 1963 San Diego Chargers vs. 1964 Buffalo Bills – Yes, the Bills beat the Chargers in ’64 & ’65. However, those Chargers teams were not as good as the ’63 squad, which was strong, healthy, and that offense was firing on all cylinders. Tobin Rote was in his final dominant season, Lance Alworth was the AFL MVP, Lincoln & Lowe were probably the best back tandem in the league, and they had excellent secondary receivers in Norton and Kocourek. Meanwhile, the ’64 Bills have a bone-crushing defense. They allowed less than 1,000 rushing yards for the entire season, and led the league in several defensive categories. Their line was dominant with Sestak, Dunaway, McDole & Day, and their linebacking corps was no slouch with Stratton, Tracey and Jacobs.
- 1966 Kansas City Chiefs vs. 1969 Kansas City Chiefs – The losers of Super Bowl I vs. the winners of Super Bowl IV. What made one team so much better than the other? Was it that the Green Bay Packers were that much more dominant than the Minnesota Vikings? Or had the Chiefs made significant changes to their roster? Offensive lines are similar, with one difference at guard. Quarterback is the same, and there are some changes at running back and receiver. Otis Taylor was much more seasoned by 1969. There were slight changes on defense, but he core of Buchanan, Bell, Robinson, Mays, Holub, Thomas and Brown were there for both squads.
It would be interesting to see one of our rotisserie players pit these teams against each other and share the results with us. Other than that, I think that debating the hell out of it is the only way that we will have any hope of solving these questions. Enjoy!
I don’t pretend to have the background to have an opinion on the Chargers vs. Bills, but I think the 69 Chiefs would have handled the 66 Chiefs because of their greater experience, but also because you added Willie Lanier and Jim Lynch to the linebacking corps. Also, with Jan Stenerud, they added the most dominant kicker of the era. His 48 yard field goal in Super Bowl IV really deflated the Vikings because suddenly, the Chiefs were a legitimate scoring threat from the 50 yard line on in. The Chiefs’ running game in 69 was also stronger with the addition of Wendell Hayes, Robert Holmes and Warren McVea. The 66 team was a great team, as shown by their 31-7 win over the Bills in Buffalo in the AFL Championship game, but the 69 Chiefs were more loaded than anyone gave them credit for.
The 1966 Chiefs admitted they were tight and a little intimidated by the Packers, whereas the 1969 Chiefs(& the rival Raiders), were the best team in pro football. 1969 Chiefs win by a field goal late.
The 1963 Chargers most pro football experts agree, would have beaten the NFL Champ Chicago Bears. Chargers over 1964 Bills by 10 points…..but the game would have been close throughout.
64 Bills over the Chargers- this team probably had more charcater, heart and soul then any AFL Team- ever…
While the 63 Chargers were indeed loaded, everyone seems to gloss over the fact that they had 2 weeks rest going into the AFL championship game against the Patriots, who had to play their way into the game by beating the Bills just to get out of the East. Bob, I’m with you. The 64 Bills were a team with heart and the Chargers were cocky front runners. If you want to play the game go to “what if Sports” on the web. I play the 64 Bills against all the NFL champs of the 60’s and they do more than hold their own against all of them.
1969 Chiefs were better than 1966 Chiefs. Mostly the same group, but, more seasoned and upgrade at linebacker. Lanier is a HOF member, and Lynch is Pro-bowl player. Deep on defense and All-Pro offensive linemen make a great team.
Also, 1966 Packers were better than Vikings at key positions; Quarterback, Middle Linebacker, and Free Safety. And Lombardi won more key games than Bud Grant. I think 1966 Chiefs could have beat 1969 Vikings.
1963 Chargers are a mystery to me. I admire Alworth, Lincoln, Mix, Lowe, and others. But Tobin Rote to me was a washed up old NFL quarterback. Yet they had a great year and destroyed a good Patriots team in Championship game. I think Bills would have beat Chargers.
On any given Sunday, as always… that referenced/aside, if ‘progress’ equates improvement in football teams/players (I’m not certain it does, at least every case), then the ’69 Chiefs would beat each of those other teams because by the end of the decade progress (there’s that word again) would deem it conclusion.
By year 10 AFL (compared 1963’s four, 1964’s five & 1966’s seven), differences in talent levels team to team had narrowed, competitiveness likewise increased. The ’69 Chiefs had only 4 holdovers on defense (starters) from the ’66 Chiefs: Buchanan, Bell, Robinson & Mays – all HOF enshrinees or worthy consideration.
Mix in Thomas (who became a starter at CB), Lanier, Culp, Brown, Lynch, Kearney & Marsalis you get the best defense the AFL ever produced, according many; that they went on the road 3 straight games in post season & won each while holding their opponents (Jets, Raiders & Vikings) to just 20 points combined affirming.
By ’69, the 1966 Chiefs offense had replaced only 4 players (Burford, Frazier, Merz & McClinton, with Holub, Moorman, Pitts, Hayes and/or Holmes. Oh yes, and Stenerud who took over from Mercer, the kicking game.)
On offense, the 1969 Chiefs were not nearly as explosive as the 1966 team. The other AFL teams improvements were the main reason my opine, but too Hank Stram fell in love with Jan Stenerud’s leg/field goals, settling for 3’s in lieu 7’s far too often as a result his confidence in Stenerud (the 1971 playoff loss to Miami just one example how any sure thing/Jan is never really the case; that’s another story. The ’69 Raiders were probably better than the Chiefs, i.e. were they to play 10 times, I suspect the Raiders would have won most of them (fact is they had beaten the Chiefs 7 of the previous 9 games going back to ’66, and beat the Chiefs twice in 1969’s regular season.)
As a Chiefs fan I have to say that the Raiders were, my opinion, the best team in the AFL 1967-1969, yet have nothing to show for it terms World Championship. They, like the Dallas Cowboys & Baltimore Colts were the perennial ‘Tomorrow’s Champions’ and would have to wait a few more years for their reward.
~
1963 Chargers vs 1964 Bills = irresistible force meets immovable object. As an impartial observer with no dog in this fight, could see it going either way. My ‘hunch’ is, despite the Chargers having held off the vaunted Patriots defensive line 1963, Bills ‘Thundering Herd’ might’ve been an even more hard fought game; on any given Sunday, again my answer (would be sorta like the ’85 Bears defense against the ’99 Rams ‘Greatest Show On Turf’ offense… who can say/best of 5?)
It’s fun to speculate on all of this, but we’ll never know. Were a ‘match for the ages’ ever possible, Rocky Marciano vs Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali would be my choice; well that and maybe my ’69 Chiefs vs Lombardi’s ’66 (or any other year, his) Packers.
1963 Chargers beat the 1964 Bills, and I am of the opinion that it would not have been all that close. Remember that the much less powerful/focused.healthy Chargers jumped on the Bills in the ’64 title game, and were it not for Stratton having ended Lincoln’s day early, that game had the makings of another blowout. The ’65 title game certainly can’t be disregarded, but one can certainly envision that had Lincoln’s ribs not been broken, and the Chargers won the ’64 championship in Buffalo, that game the next year might well have ended differently. The ’63 Chargers were arguably the best AFL team.
Mr. Millsap: Just read your post re the 1964 AFL Championship game, and I couldn’t disagree with you more. Going into the game the Chargers had lost 3 of their last four on their way to a 8-5-1 record. The Bills only lost two games that whole season, finishing 12-2 (including a sweep of the Chargers by scores of 30-3 and 27-24). I wouldn’t exactly say the Chargers “jumped on the Bills” by scoring the first TD of the game (and their only score), nor can I comprehend your statement that the “game had the makings of another blowout” but for Keith Lincoln’s injury.
While we can agree that the loss of Lincoln was huge for the Chargers, they had no answer to the Bills running game (41-219-2TDs). Cookie Gilchrist ran for 122 yards on 16 carries, and Wray Carlton added 70 yards on 18 carries. Both QBs completed only 10 passes, with Jack Kemp throwing for 188 to Tobin Rote’s 118 AND 2 INTs. On the day the Chargers turned the ball over 3 times to the Bills 0. In short, the Bills dominated the Chargers in virtually every respect, and to say that with Keith Lincoln the Chargers would have blown out the Bills is just plain silly. Nice try though.
BTW, I’m a 57 year old long suffering Bills fan that has lived in another suffering city — San Diego, since 1984. Go Bills! Go Chargers! Remember the AFL!
Mike
By ’69 the Chiefs had tremendously upgraded their corners from Fred Williamson & Willie Mitchell to Emmitt Thomas & Jim Marsalis. Combined with the additions of Lanier & Lynch, the defense was significantly better than ’66.
The ’69 Chiefs were significantly upgraded over the ’66 version, as articulated elsewhere above (Lynch, Lanier, Culp, Thomas, Marsalis, Stenerud, Pitts, Holmes, Hayes, McVea). I’m a Chargers fan, but growing up, and now having moved back to, Kansas City, I speak with predominantly Chiefs fans, and grew up listening to old timers’ tales…most of them, and for that matter I just having heard and read the stories, kind of wonder whether Stram was really that good of a coach…the talent on that team would seemingly have been capable of even more than it did accomplish (what, 43-12-1 regular season from ’66-’69?)…the Raiders were a great team, but the Chiefs didn’t struggle that much with them – it was the random Bengals loss, for instance, that is head scratching. They won all of the games Dawson was out for and Livingston played in ’69, so that just adds to the mystery. But I guess that’s what makes it all interesting in the end!
Actually, the loss to the Bengals was the first game following Dawson’s injury. Jacky Lee started the game, but got hurt. Third stringer Livingston replaced. Interestingly, a few years back, when Philadelphia went to the Super Bowl using 3 starting QBs, all the TV folks said it was the first time that had happened. Just another example of their ignorance of the AFL, as the Chiefs used 3 starting QBs in ’69.
The ’69 Chief were crap, They did not belong in the super bowl. They only got there buy cheating the Oakland Raiders in the Playoff game.
Andy, that’s an absurd statement. The Chiefs and Raiders achieved a rough parity during the 1966-71 timeframe. The Chiefs arguably had more talent, although I would not necessarily rely on induction in Canton as a conclusive yardstick. If you are referring to the Taylor catch, it did appear to be a blown call, but the Chiefs defense in three post-season games yielded 20 points. I would suggest to you that had the Raiders had the ball 10 more times on that particular day, they still would have finished with 7 points. Aaron Brown did Lamonica a favor that day in putting him out of his annual end of season playoff misery.
KC 17 @OAK 7
In KC, they spelled victory D-E-F-E-N-S-E (4 int’s, 4 QB sacks & just 233 yards & 1st quarter td allowed to the AFL’s # 1 ranked offense in yards, tds & points scored per game.)
In Oakland, they spelled it E-X-C-U-S-E-S (Lamonica’s finger, Blanda’s leg, the official’s calls, the one-time special post season playoff format yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.)
It must have been a conspiracy.
Perhaps Oakland / Al Davis didn’t water down the field enough, perhaps alleged diagrammed plays found on a napkin left in a restaurant by Lamonica culprit or maybe… maybe KC was just the better team on January 4, 1970.
Was poor sportsmanship according one report. Jim Otto of OAK reportedly said in response to a question aft the Chiefs beat the Raiders – “I don’t think they’ll make a good representative” in the Superbowl.
Such angst/how sour were thy grapes, Jim (nod Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy addressing Capt. Kirk: “they’re (the Raiders) dead, Jim.”)
The Chiefs belonged: they beat the Raiders – in Oakland – to earn their way to New Orleans. While the one-year only playoff format ’69 that allowed wild card teams (KC & HOU) to be in post season didn’t please me (it almost necessitates an *, my opine), said was understood by all the teams before the season began.
Accordingly, KC likely would have tried harder to win the final regular season game (they lost in OAK 10-6), had it meant no post season shy a win (Stram was heavily criticized for playing a conservative game (just six passes attempted), to allow his injured QB (Dawson) more time to heal.
KC went to NY and beat the Jets by a touchdown, Chiefs D held NY to but 2 field goals the entire game, intercepted Namath 3 times and had 4 turnovers all told. Meanwhile, the Raiders beat HOU 56-7 and probably were overconfident going into the AFL Championship Game vs the Chiefs (I recall Len Dawson saying KC players saw the Raiders getting off the team bus before the game was even played, with their bags already packed for New Orleans, as well afterward saw them carrying their bags back home for the off-season : )
AFL Championship Game, fact is KC gave/OAK had every opportunity to win it due several errors by the Chiefs, some unforced. Could OAK have won? Sure; Blanda missed 3 field goals, that’s nine more points for OAK.
Could KC have beaten OAK even worse? You bet. Jan Stenerud missed a field goal, and Bobby Bell dropped an interception deep in Oakland territory that probably would’ve resulted in Bell’s/another KC td otherwise; that’s 10 more points for KC.
On any given Sunday…
The Raiders have a history of forwarding their bags to the Super Bowl site before the AFL/AFC Championship game was played. They did that in 1974 against Pittsburgh. They got smoked that day as well.
LAMONICA was put out purposely, only way K C could win.
Saw the game in Vietnam, what a heart breaker. NOBODY, can tell me different.
“LAMONICA was put out purposely, only way K C could win.”
– “put out purposely”… do elaborate. I attended that game in Oakland and observed nothing suspicious nor malicious beyond the normal bone-crunching nature the game of football. You’re entitled of course, believe as you may. Shy more than supposition, it’s just unsubstantiated opinion of course.
‘Purposely’ by who? I suspect you believe KC with malice aforethought tried to hurt the OAK QB (the game by its very nature lends itself said, see Ben Davidson helmet vs Len Dawson’s speared back.) Available evidence does not support ‘purposely’: Lamonica’s hand was hurt due his own process/a follow-through on a pass play hitting KC DE Aaron Brown’s helmet. I’ve never heard anyone the Raiders to include Lamonica himself suggest was more to it than fate’s giant hand moving (here’s a link to recaps the 1969 AFL post season, including the Chiefs/Raiders game.)
http://www.mmbolding.com/BSR/fbchampionships/AFL1969.html
Turnovers by OAK having already been cited earlier, the physical nature of the game Madden references in the link was affirmed by the fact the Chiefs players suffered among other a bruised kidney, cracked ribs and yet another actually broke his belt while making a tackle. Lamonica’s tendons his hand in addition Otto/the Raiders hearts being broken variously considered OAK’s side, fact is ‘with’ Lamonica playing they were only able to score 7 points the entire 1st half & Lamonica wasn’t hurt until well into the 3rd quarter, so rather than any plot thickening, moreso the claim falls apart i.e., “the only way K C could win”. That Lamonica returned to the game later, ‘The Old Man of the Miracle’ Blanda likewise not able lead OAK to a score during his limited time/6 passes, suggests the better ‘team’ won that day.
Was the third straight year that OAK failed to win the big game ’67-’69 vs GB, NYJ & KC. The trend continued the post-AFL years NFL 1970, 1971 & 1972 with Lamonica / Raiders. In the parlance, what is known failing live up to expectations. And in the final analysis the fact is Lamonica, Otto & those Raiders et al never did win ‘the’ big game. Fair or not, be epitaph theirs as well cross to bear, history’s rewind.
As an Chiefs fan first & Raiders second, say that while the latter ‘woulda, coulda, shoulda’ won big, as to the former they too left wins/Championships unrequited beyond the results in the record book, for whatever reason(s).
I always wondered that if the 2 leagues hadn’t merged, would of the AFL expanded into the Chicago market.
Its always fun to speculate, I think if they hadnt merged chicago would have been a tough sell for a 2d team, I could see the NFL jumping into tampa since the AFL had the only florida team, I could see the AFL grabbing the nashville/memphis market and seattle. With the arrogance of the NFL they might have tried to put a 2d team in LA just to keep the AFL out of that city.
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 76701 additional Information to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 21774 more Information to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 9606 more Information on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 79257 more Info to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 18433 additional Information on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: talesfromtheamericanfootballleague.com/who-would-win-63-chargers-vs-64-bills-66-chiefs-vs-69-chiefs/ […]