major Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.remembertheafl.com/AFL.htm It's a great stroll through Buffalo Bills memory lane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 http://www.remembertheafl.com/AFL.htm It's a great stroll through Buffalo Bills memory lane. Very cool I am going to get into it after work today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It looks fantastic! One of the most treasured memories of my youth! KRC, any input here? I see Jeff Miller's book here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It looks fantastic! One of the most treasured memories of my youth! KRC, any input here? I see Jeff Miller's book here. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 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. I ask myself that all the time.. Wow! Thanks for the insight. I had no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I ask myself that all the time.. We need to start an online petition to get that resolved. Wow! Thanks for the insight. I had no idea. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 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. Ken, I consider the AFL Superbowl Chiefs to be one of the top 3 or 4 defenses in either league since Superbowl I. Any opinion on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ken, I consider the AFL Superbowl Chiefs to be one of the top 3 or 4 defenses in either league since Superbowl I. Any opinion on this? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicholasCal1 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 great site. thanks for the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 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. I view the offense as rather pedestrian when compared to the raiders and jets. Dawson was great, but lots of posters today would complain about his "arm strength." They had a huge array of backs, but none were stars. Fred Arbanas was primarily a blocker as a TE. At wideout, Otis Taylor was a true superstar. Of course, their OL was superb. Defense was another story. The DL consisted of Aaron Brown, Curley Culp, Buck Buchannon, and Jerry Mays. Four very talented players. The LBs were as good as any. Jim Lynch and Bobby Bell on the outside; Willie Lanier in the middle. The secondary, while less star studded, did boast of Emmit Thomas and John Robinson, who I think belongs in the HOF. Either way, Lanier, Buchannon and Bell are in the HOF, and this was one fierce defense, and they were even big for their time. Btw, thanks. it is great talking about this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Btw, thanks. it is great talking about this stuff. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIE HARD 1967 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 That is a great site and I go there often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkx2 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 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 think he's talking about the 1969 Chiefs defense. Top five at least. They destroyed Joe Kapp and the Vikings that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I think he's talking about the 1969 Chiefs defense. Top five at least. They destroyed Joe Kapp and the Vikings that day. That's the one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkx2 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Not trying to take away from the super Bowl of today, but having the two different league really made for great Super Bowls. The two leagues hated each other and it showed on and off the field. Having lived through those times, I still wish the AFL was around and that the Bills would have won that first day of January 1967 and played in the first Super bowl. Also to think if the the two leagues would have played just a couple of years earlier, I feel the Bills of 64 or 65 could have won the Super Bowl one of those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 That's the one! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 That's the one! Moving over to offense... Think there's a place for Otis Smith on this Bills team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Moving over to offense...Think there's a place for Otis Smith on this Bills team? If you mean Otis Taylor, he would rip this league apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 If you mean Otis Taylor, he would rip this league apart. Taylor, my colossal bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Best thing about the ole AFL was the 1965 Topps football Cards. I have the complete set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Best thing about the ole AFL was the 1965 Topps football Cards. I have the complete set. They were nice, weren't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 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. It was the Chiefs offense that was strong I was at the championship game. "In the American Football League, a predominantly offensive league, the Buffalo Bills were a great defensive team. With a linebacking corps of Harry Jacobs, Mike Stratton, and John Tracey; and defensive line stalwarts like Tom Day, Tom Sestak, Jim Dunaway, and Ron McDole, the Bills defense did not allow a rushing touchdown for seventeen straight games over a period of the 1964 and 1965 seasons. Their pass defense was just as good as their run defense, registering fifty quarterback sacks in 1964, still a team record, although it was established in a 14-game season. The Bills won AFL championships in both of those seasons. They were the first American Football League team to win 13 games in a season (1964); were one of only three teams to appear in an AFL championship game for three successive years; and the only AFL team to apear in the playoffs four straight years, 1963 through 1966. Balancing their defensive prowess, the Bills had offensive muscle as well, in stars such as running backs Cookie Gilchrist and Wray Carlton, quarterbacks Jack Kemp and Daryle Lamonica, and receivers Elbert Dubenion and Ernie Warlick." The best part was that these were truly our guys. They were Bills. It was nothing like today with every man out for the highest dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I view the offense as rather pedestrian when compared to the raiders and jets. Dawson was great, but lots of posters today would complain about his "arm strength." They had a huge array of backs, but none were stars. Fred Arbanas was primarily a blocker as a TE. At wideout, Otis Taylor was a true superstar. Of course, their OL was superb. Defense was another story. The DL consisted of Aaron Brown, Curley Culp, Buck Buchannon, and Jerry Mays. Four very talented players. The LBs were as good as any. Jim Lynch and Bobby Bell on the outside; Willie Lanier in the middle. The secondary, while less star studded, did boast of Emmit Thomas and John Robinson, who I think belongs in the HOF. Either way, Lanier, Buchannon and Bell are in the HOF, and this was one fierce defense, and they were even big for their time. Btw, thanks. it is great talking about this stuff. I believe that Arbanas was blind in one eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 It was the Chiefs offense that was strong I was at the championship game. "In the American Football League, a predominantly offensive league, the Buffalo Bills were a great defensive team. With a linebacking corps of Harry Jacobs, Mike Stratton, and John Tracey; and defensive line stalwarts like Tom Day, Tom Sestak, Jim Dunaway, and Ron McDole, the Bills defense did not allow a rushing touchdown for seventeen straight games over a period of the 1964 and 1965 seasons. Their pass defense was just as good as their run defense, registering fifty quarterback sacks in 1964, still a team record, although it was established in a 14-game season. The Bills won AFL championships in both of those seasons. They were the first American Football League team to win 13 games in a season (1964); were one of only three teams to appear in an AFL championship game for three successive years; and the only AFL team to apear in the playoffs four straight years, 1963 through 1966. Balancing their defensive prowess, the Bills had offensive muscle as well, in stars such as running backs Cookie Gilchrist and Wray Carlton, quarterbacks Jack Kemp and Daryle Lamonica, and receivers Elbert Dubenion and Ernie Warlick." The best part was that these were truly our guys. They were Bills. It was nothing like today with every man out for the highest dollar. Yeah I don't think to many of those hardcases worryed much about "not enough night clubs in Buffalo" Just reading those names makes me pissed about the party punks I see today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 We ought to go back to the 1962 Uni's. I've always wondered why Jack Kemp didn't get more traction for the HOF. His numbers are comparable to several other QB's of that era, including Namath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I believe that Arbanas was blind in one eye. He did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Kemp fumbled all the time. He wasn't that flashy like Joe Willie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 http://www.remembertheafl.com/AFL.htm It's a great stroll through Buffalo Bills memory lane. Been on this site before. Also won a bet using info from this site with a guy who thought he knew everything about the AFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts