KRC

Here are receiving stats for your enjoyment. This might settle your argument. Linky Thingy

Just starting? QB's next: 1. Brady 2. Edwards 3. Favre 4. Warner 5. Big Ben

They were nice, weren't they.

My bad. I thought you meant the first AFL Super Bowl Chiefs from '66. Yes, the '69 Chiefs had a better defense and was one of the ones I thought of ahead of the '66 team. Possibly top five. I would have to go through every year to make sure, though.

I'll talk about it anytime you want. As far as the other comments, I am not disparaging the Chiefs defense of '66. With the HOFers and and should-be-HOFers, they can definitely make a case. While the offense may not have had as many name players as the defense, they were still efficient and could get it done. As far as many posters complaining about Dawson's arm strength, many posters are idjits. That pretty much explains the level of discourse and why I don't waste my time in the bulk of the football threads.

I would have to go through and try to rank the defenses, but I think I can come up with more than three that were better. They may be top ten, but I am not sure about top five. Don't get me wrong. The Chiefs defense that year was pretty good. Except in the AFL Championship Game, the Buffalo Bills still had a decent defense that year (not to the 1964 or 1965 level, but still pretty good). I think what helped the Chiefs' defense that year was a potent offense. It is much easier to play better when you know the opponent needs to throw the ball to catch up.

We need to start an online petition to get that resolved. I have, unfortunately, had the "pleasure" of dealing with him on the PFRA forum. It was ugly. He was pretty much discredited by every historian there due to his bias.

While the site may have good info, Angelo really has no credibility. He is so biased towards the AFL that if someone does not bow down to the altar of the AFL, he will tear them apart and try to discredit them. To give you an idea of some of his lahjik, he has Paul Brown in both the AFL Hall of Fame and the AFL Hall of Infamy. He then says that Paul Brown is the AFL HOF under protest. again, He is the one that runs it. How the hell can he protest the people he puts into it? He also has the PFRA as the second induction into the Hall of Infamy. Why? Because we didn't bow down to the altar of the AFL. Second place? SECOND place? Why the hell aren't we in first place? I give him credit for wanting to preserve the history of the AFL. The way he goes about it, however, hurts his case and in the long run will do more damage to the memory of the AFL than anything else. I would be wary of anything that he writes. As far as Jeff Miller, I know Jeff. He has written two fantastic books on pro football in Buffalo and is a very respected historian.

He played for the Bills in 1970 and one game in 1971. Austin Denney Passes

Many years, he did. The problem was the length of the career. He only played seven years. Spec Sanders is the same way. He played at a HOF level, but only for a short time. With all of the other HOFers on the Browns of that era, Speedie will probably never get in.

The lines did extremely well. When you come up to visit (we still need to set a date), I will show you game films from those 1940s Cleveland teams (including games they played against the Buffalo Bills of the AAFC). You can see for yourself how well they played. In interviewing players from that era, they said that Motley could have made it into the HOF just on his linebacking skills. Lou Saban (yes, that same Lou Saban) also played well on both sides of the ball. Add Groza as your kicker and Brown as your coach, you have a well-oiled machine. The proof was in the 10 straight championship game appearances and seven championships.

Lavelli was a Raymond Berry-type of receiver. Not the fastest guy (Hutson-type), but extremely reliable. Also, he was a hard worker like Berry. He did not take the precision to a Berry level (analyzing the field before the game), but they were both of the same mold as far as putting in the extra effort with the QB to make sure they were both on the same page. As you mentioned, he was one hell of a guy. Kinda quiet and tough to get him to talk from what I hear from others who have interviewed him. As I mentioned in the first post, he granted me an interview, but I was not able to conduct the interview before his passing. That is something that I will kick myself over. I thought about him last night and said that I needed to call him this weekend to talk to him. I woke up this morning and found out he passed away. Just think of the offensive fire power of that Cleveland team. Graham at QB. Lavelli and Speedie at end and Motley in the backfield. Holy hell!!

One of the great receivers of all-time and one hell of a guy. Very unassuming person. He had granted me an interview, but he passed away before I could interview him. Dante Lavelli Obit R.I.P.

Amateur. Machete.

Slacker.

Mine is an AAFC obsession.

There is no official AFL Hall of Fame. The only AFL Hall of Fame is the one created by a fan of the league who has an un-natural obsession with the league. Hardly credible.

Very good advice. While it is not necessary to do it, it will definitely enhance your experience. Here is a good place to start on the early history of professional football: Professional Football Researchers Association.

Math is hard.

Here is the original article that TB was referring to here.

They interviewed Mel Tucker, from what I understand.

My records show that he started one game while playing with Indy in 1985: November 24 against the Chiefs. That is it for his career. You are correct about not starting while in Buffalo.

There is nothing wrong with people putting Deacon Jones at the top of the list as the best pass rusher. Again, he dominated in his era, just like Bruce and Reggie. You can also add Marchetti to the list. Arguments can be made for all four as the best pass rusher in history. You have to remember that players adjust their game to the rules at the time. As Bill from NYC mentioned, if you would put Deacon into today's game, he would play differently. To automatically assume that a player's game would not change if they played in a different era is disingenuous and purposely not giving a player proper credit for their accomplishments. The truth is that if they were keeping sacks in those days, Deacon would have had the most. Historians have gone back and reviewed the films and totaled up sacks and it is true. He would have had the most (I used to have those numbers handy, but not anymore). There is no way anyone can deny it. The analysis proves it. If you want to put Reggie and Bruce ahead of Deacon and Marchetti, that is fine. To use the headslap "argument" is not the way to legitimize your point because your are purposely ignoring realities of the game in the respective eras. In my work with the PFRA, I am constantly having to compare players across eras. The second anyone uses the headslap "argument" to discredit Jones and has nothing else to back up their point, instantly loses credibility in my eyes. If you want to use it as a minor point in your analysis, go ahead. But, there had better be a lot more substantive data to back up your rankings than that. Otherwise, it just shows bias in the analysis because, frankly, the headslap argument carries no weight.

I figured I would try a different approach to what is normally posted here.

Wow. After meeting you, I thought you would have been much older. HFBD, youngster!!