Best Decade of the NFL

[oldecapecod11]

by BD Sullivan » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:54 pm
"The population of the U.S. from 1940-60 went from 132 million to about 180 million. The current estimated population is approximately 322 million. Out of that additional 140 million (or so) people since the latter year, I would think an additional 1,000 athletic players could be found--especially since they're actually making serious money now, as opposed to the "benevolent" owners of long ago nickel and diming them at every opportunity."

There is no denying the population explosion that has taken place throughout the world. Consider, however, that much of it
can be attributed to the fact that medicine and science is constantly extending the life expectancy of man.
Owner benevolence - or lack thereof - has absolutely no bearing on the matter.
If it did, the product of the '50s and '60s might have been even better luring the likes of a Dick Kazmaier who spurned
the Chicago Bears and chose to further his education. He, and a few others, would have raised the bar of the era even higher.
Perhaps the niggardly attitude of ownership kept the sport from plunging to the depths of drug use which was certainly prevalent
at the time in the entertainment field and readily available to those with plenty of spendable excess.
So, save the nickel and dime arguments for the Bazooka chewers of the world.
The "dime bag" buyers had not yet become a topic of nfl headlines which speaks more for the quality of the league in that era.

---

by mwald » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:13 pm

BD Sullivan wrote:
I would think an additional 1,000 athletic players could be found--especially since they're actually making serious money now, as opposed to the "benevolent" owners of long ago nickel and diming them at every opportunity.

"Great point. I'm reading a book called 'Players: The Story of Sports and Money, and the Visionaries Who Fought to Create a Revolution.' It will be released in April but I had an opportunity to read it now because an advance proof was given to me by a friend. Based on what I'm reading your comment is right on the money (no pun intended).
It also made me realize how difficult it is to apply past standards to current day. The forces that govern everything, whether it be politics, sports, music, religion, or relationships are completely different. For people to expect football to be like it was in the 1950s, or 1970s, or to blame people in charge because it isn't, is like looking at the lizard in your garden and blaming it for not being a dinosaur."

There was once a fellow or gal who posted here and was accused of being obtuse by some but every once-in-a-while
his words made sense. He might have expounded on the application of past standards to present day achievements.

Remembering the sting of numerous butt-kickings which included American independence and a minor event of 1812,
a chap once questioned why our War of the Southern Secession lasted as long as it did. The reply was quite to the point -
we were fighting Americans, not Britons.

Certainly sports is among the most guilty when comparing today with yesterday. Consider the 1,000-yard rusher -
a feat once completed in twenty-five percent fewer games on slow, soggy and sometimes muddy surfaces.
Maybe the Maris asterisk should be the norm in the ledgers of the stats rats?

This august (but becoming less so) body is constantly measuring the Bradys against the Starrs and against the Luckmans
of the game and overlooks the fact that Sammy played both ways and punted too.
Some even promote fraud as a means of accessing false data.

Surely there is a vast difference between the viper and the python but the thread asks for the "Best Decade of the NFL"
- not herpetological assumptions.

---

Always keep in mind, all opinions are merely 1/7,296,870,000th (and growing) of those on the planet.

Here's a quote that might be beyond dispute.

From the Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2009:
"You can make the case that the genesis of modern Professional Football was the AFL."
~ Bob Costas

[JWL]

I’d go with the 1970s, for both. Rupert made a good point about the also-rans of the decade, but not sure it’s any different today. But the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Steelers, Vikings, and Dolphins? Personality par excellence! Don’t know that there’s been a decade with so many teams so good for so long, all who at least had the potential to win the Super Bowl every year.

The 1970s in that way could be compared to the AFC of the past 13 years. From 2003-15, it seems the Patriots, Colts, Broncos, Steelers and Ravens are in the playoffs every year and then there is some other random team joining them.

It will be Brady, P. Manning, or Roethlisberger in the Super Bowl 12 of the last 13 seasons now. Boooooorrrrrrrrrrriing.

[Jay Z]

I’d go with the 1970s, for both. Rupert made a good point about the also-rans of the decade, but not sure it’s any different today. But the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Steelers, Vikings, and Dolphins? Personality par excellence! Don’t know that there’s been a decade with so many teams so good for so long, all who at least had the potential to win the Super Bowl every year.

The 1970s in that way could be compared to the AFC of the past 13 years. From 2003-15, it seems the Patriots, Colts, Broncos, Steelers and Ravens are in the playoffs every year and then there is some other random team joining them.

It will be Brady, P. Manning, or Roethlisberger in the Super Bowl 12 of the last 13 seasons now. Boooooorrrrrrrrrrriing.

NFL Playoff appearances since 2003:
AFC
NE - 12
IND - 11
BAL, DEN, PIT - 8
CIN - 7
SD - 6
KC - 5
NYJ - 4
HOU, TEN - 3
JAX - 2
MIA - 1
BUF, CLE, OAK - 0

NFC
GB, SEA - 10
PHI - 7
CAR - 6
ATL, DAL, MIN, NYG, NO - 5
ARI, WAS - 4
CHI, SF - 3
DET, Rams, TB - 2

It is certainly night and day. The closest thing to a miracle team in the NYJ is the Jets, who actually have a winning record in the playoffs at 5-4. CIN at 0-7 and KC at 1-5. SD is okay at 4-6. Three goose eggs, that is unbelievable when 6 out of 16 make the playoffs.

Whereas in the NFC EVERYONE has at least 2. CHI, SF, ARI all get to the Super Bowl, which is as often as GB has gotten. Giants twice.








AFC:

[JoeZagorski]

In my opinion, the 1970s was the best decade in the NFL. I felt that way so much, that I wrote a book about it. http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.ph ... 864-9790-4
Joe Zagorski

[JWL]

In my opinion, the 1970s was the best decade in the NFL. I felt that way so much, that I wrote a book about it. http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.ph ... 864-9790-4
Joe Zagorski

I will buy that book.

[JoeZagorski]

Thanks JWL! I think you'll like it.
Joe Zagorski

[mwald]

I will likely buy this, too. Love all decades of football but in the 1970s the NFL and pop culture had some type of synergy going on. Interested if your book explores this.

[JoeZagorski]

Dear MWald,

In my book, I mention some of the national and world-wide events of the 1970s, and I briefly discuss how the NFL became a welcomed respite from the bad news of the nation (gas lines, Presidential resignation, Three Mile Island, Guyana tragedy, etc.). Most of the book explores each year of the decade in the realm of pro football. I've been telling people that if you don't like pro football history, you probably won't like my book. But if you do enjoy pro football history, you'll be interested in my book. Thanks for your comments!

Sincerely,
Joe Zagorski

[Bryan]

Dear MWald,

In my book, I mention some of the national and world-wide events of the 1970s, and I briefly discuss how the NFL became a welcomed respite from the bad news of the nation (gas lines, Presidential resignation, Three Mile Island, Guyana tragedy, etc.). Most of the book explores each year of the decade in the realm of pro football. I've been telling people that if you don't like pro football history, you probably won't like my book. But if you do enjoy pro football history, you'll be interested in my book. Thanks for your comments!

Sincerely,
Joe Zagorski

Did you choose the cover photo for your book? If so, is there any special meaning behind it?

[JoeZagorski]

Yes. I wanted the person who wrote the introduction to be on the cover. Staubach and Tarkenton turned me down, but Bleier did not. I found a good photo of him from Super Bowl X (my favorite Super Bowl of all time). The photo was shot in such a way that it allowed enough space for the title. So I went with that.

Joe Z.