Old Timers TD: Which American Football League Team was the best from 1960-1969?
Oso's back-Sort of said 03/30, 02:53 PM
The AFL had an illustrious but brief history before merging with the NFL. There were several teams that stood out above the rest.
The team that consistently had a winning record out of all other teams, and nabbed the 1963 championship was the San Diego Chargers.
The Chargers went 86-48-6 between 1960-1969 and had a .644 win % that was the class of the AFL. In fact, the Chargers only had 1 losing season in this time frame.
Furthermore, the Chargers contended for the AFL championship 5 times.
This is why the Chargers were the best team in the AFL from 1960-69.
erwin: Back Again. said 03/30, 03:36 PM
I will go ahead and say the Kansas City Chiefs, also known as the Dallas Texans.
The Chiefs/Texans won 3 AFL Championships, had an astounding record of 92-50-5. They tied with the Oakland Raiders for the most AFL playoff appearances.
From 1963 on the Chiefs had just one season below .500.
They won the 1962, 1966, and 1969 AFL Championships. They also won the Super Bowl in 1969. They won the AFL West division twice. They made the playoffs 6 times, which, as I stated before, ties an AFL record.
The Kansas City Chiefs/Dallas Texans were the best AFL team from 1960-1969.
Oso's back-Sort of said 03/31, 12:38 PM
You made a great choice. However, the Chargers had a better win % at .644 as opposed to the Chiefs' .642 close, but the edge goes to the Chargers.
Next. You mentioned the Chiefs made it to the playoffs 6 times. Ask Jim Mora about that one. Playoffs?!?!?
Playoffs are nice, but it's even better when you make it to the Championship more than any other team in the league.
The Chargers made it to the championship 5 times to the Chiefs 3 appearances.
In a small league where only the top dog in the division goes to the title game, it's apparent that the Chargers were better and more dominant than the Chiefs over the span of the decade.
erwin: Back Again. said 03/31, 06:49 PM
Championships apperances are okay, but it's even better when you win the championship every time you reach the title game. That's right, the Chiefs were 3 for 3 in AFL Championships and also won a Super Bowl.
The Chiefs, as I stated before, made the playoffs 6 times compared to the Chargers' 5. Also, even though they reached the championship 5 times, they lost 4 of them.
Making it to the championship is one thing, winning is another. And I'm sure we all agree winning it is a lot better than just getting there.
Oso's back-Sort of said 03/31, 10:28 PM
You're sure we all agree?
Your 6 KC playoff appearances has holes. KC made it to the AFC championship 3 times. The Chiefs only had a playoff game in 1968 in a tie with Oakland.
So the Chiefs only went to the playoffs in the AFL 1 time, and the AFL Championship 3 times. There is one 1 other instance of a playoff in the AFL. The Chiefs weren't in that one. So where are the other 5 appearances from?
Unless you assume the AFL titles they won in lieu of SB appearances are playoffs. If that's so, then these 2 Championships are not titles, but mere playoffs, which drops the Chiefs down to having 2 Championships.
Your emphasis lies solely upon Championships, which is only a single element of a team's dominance of a league. 3 seasons out of 10 isn't even a third of a decade. On the other hand, San Diego's 5 Western Division wins and 1 AFL Championship span half of that time period.
Over the entire decade of the 1960's the Chargers had a higher win percentage than the Chiefs.
Winning, whether by a fraction or a flood of victories is what makes a team greater than another. The Chargers were the team that did that the most in the AFL during the 1960-69 era.
erwin: Back Again. said 04/01, 05:36 PM
"Winning, whether by a fraction or a flood of victories is what makes a team greater than another."
Exactly. So who had more wins during the AFL's existance, the Chargers or the Chiefs? The Chiefs won 92 games. The Chargers won 86. So, by your accounts, who is the greater team? The Chiefs.
Chargers had a higher win percentage. By .02 of a percent. This is the reason why.
First, the Chiefs played 147 games from 1960-1969. The Chargers played 140. So the Chiefs had more wins, more losses, and less ties. That is the only reason why the Chargers have a higher winning percentage. If the Chargers had played 7 more games and won them all, they would still only have one more win.
Championships are a good chunk of what makes a team great, and the Chiefs have the advantage in that category. The Chiefs were the greatest AFL franchise, better than the Chargers.
Faces at the U.S. Open
Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines.
© 2008 STATS LLC
Comments (146)
Good luck on this one. I've never TD'd versus you Analytical. This should be a good one.
Oso's back-Sort of | 03/30/08, 02:55 PM
Report Offensive CommentHad a team but insufficient evidence
Analytical | 03/30/08, 02:57 PM
Report Offensive CommentWow Oso, you must really be bored eh?
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 03:29 PM
Report Offensive CommentYup that was the team i had in mind
Analytical | 03/30/08, 03:40 PM
Report Offensive CommentThis is for old people......
but old people dont have fannation accounts...
see the dilemma?!
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 04:05 PM
Report Offensive CommentI am not old. I'm 19. Do you consider that old GH?
erwin: Back Again. | 03/30/08, 04:05 PM
Report Offensive CommentErwin, not at all.
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 04:08 PM
Report Offensive CommentI'm not old so I can't vouge for the "Hoopla" from the "Heyday" of the American Football League Pt. 5.
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:08 PM
Report Offensive CommentThe oldest person i know in here is CCC.
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 04:09 PM
Report Offensive CommentWaiting for that second chance shot from Oso.
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:10 PM
Report Offensive CommentI'm not old. I have most my teeth and don't use a walker. Thats what counts right?
Cain-Willis. In & Out... | 03/30/08, 04:10 PM
Report Offensive CommentTwo things that will always transcend age are Desire and Sarcasm.
--Analytical
3/30/2008
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:11 PM
Report Offensive CommentCain , you're ugly though, so you see where your argument is invalid.
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 04:11 PM
Report Offensive CommentCain isn't ugly..Malformed maybe but not ugly.
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:12 PM
Report Offensive CommentUgly? So not being a fat, bald, middle-age man living in a trailer park makes me ugly?
Cain-Willis. In & Out... | 03/30/08, 04:13 PM
Report Offensive CommentSome people are just different that you guys.
Cain-Willis. In & Out... | 03/30/08, 04:13 PM
Report Offensive CommentMy friend from high school was known among the girls as the "hottest virgin."
erwin: Back Again. | 03/30/08, 04:15 PM
Report Offensive CommentCain you just jealous cause i have two wives.
Ghost. Done. | 03/30/08, 04:15 PM
Report Offensive CommentDid i say malformed? I meant Overformed
Seriously though how can Cain/Willis be ugly when he is obviously a Beast Football Player merged with a Fairly Good Baseball Player ...I see know problem with this.
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment"The Hottest Virgin" wow thats just not the kind of hot i want to be at all!!!!
Analytical | 03/30/08, 04:16 PM
Report Offensive CommentAdd a comment
Remember to keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed. More Guidelines