Best Decade of the NFL

[Gary Najman]

I choose the 1970s for everything that has been written above and personally, because, as a young boy growing south of the border, it was my greatest joy when the NFL preseason was coming in vacation time (July-August). I still have the Street & Smth magazines that relatives brought me as gifts from their visits to the US, and I concur that the NFL Films made in the 70s are the best (you also have to include the 1980 and 1981 seasons). After the 70s I would chose the 90s (the 80s with the two strikes and the USFL was below par). I also don't like this decade, I prefer the old times with only a handful of Thursdays ans Sunday Night games, and with not so many 4,000 yard passers and more simple rules (like the proccess of a catch).

[Jay Z]

For most of the 1970s there were too few points scored. Hard for anyone but an elite quarterback to make much of an impression. I'm glad they changed the rules towards the end of the decade. I grew up in that era, but most of the games from the 1970s are harder to watch than later games.

[JohnH19]

I don't know what the best decade was but I will say my favorite is definitely the 60s.

The first NFL game I ever watched from start to finish was the Ice Bowl, a couple of weeks after my 9th birthday, so I didn't actually live the experience of most of the decade. Nevertheless, I am absolutely fascinated by the nine year period beginning in 1961 when my Vikings gained entry and the schedule was expanded to 14 games. It was exciting, wide open football played by some of history's greatest and most influential players. Also, the game was still a long way from being marred by a rule book that must now weigh more than the average human can lift and decision makers who feel it necessary to have big brother second guess the on-field officials' decisions on every play of potential consequence.

[Bryan]

In the 70's, the Steelers didn't have to worry about losing an LC Greenwood or John Stallworth or Rocky Bleier or Donnie Shell to Free Agency every single year, those guys were going to be with the team as long as the team wanted them to be there or until they chose to retire or were injured and were forced to quit. If the Steelers had to deal with Free Agency in the 70's, there is no way they would have won four Super Bowls in six seasons.

Its hard for a team in any sport in any era to win 4 championships in 6 seasons. Those 1970's Steelers teams were great at drafting talented players and Noll was great at developing that talent. Furthermore, the Steelers were great at finding HOF talent outside the 1st round. The players mentioned above as possible Free Agency losses were 10th round, 4th round, 16th round, and free agent pickups. The Rams and Cowboys also drafted well in that time period, but they were able to stockpile high draft picks by fleecing other organizations with ridiculous deals (John Hadl Polka Trade, Seahawks-Dorsett, etc.). The Steelers were able to have success with a minimal number of picks and always picking low in the draft order. I think this ability would have served the Steelers well in a free agency/salary cap era. Replenish your roster with cheaper, younger players while keeping your superstar players with big contracts.

Would they have won 4 SBs in 6 years? Hard to say, but if every team is in the same salary cap boat as the Steelers, I don't see what team would have been better than them in that era. Strong drafting and talent development is still the key to winning in the NFL.

[Bryan]

A lot of these points have already been made, but that won't stop me: I think the 1950s, '60s and '70s were the three best decades, and which one you pick depends mainly on which story line you prefer.

The 1950s had the development of two-platoon football and famous defensive specialists, and with only 12 major league teams, a terrific concentration of talent. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Hall of Famers per team in that decade than any other. (In any given season, about half of the teams had a Hall of Fame quarterback, for instance.) A lot of terrific races for division titles, including several playoffs to break ties.

In the 1970s (that's 1970-77, before the big rule changes of 1978) the defense reasserted itself, and the 3,000-yard passes dried up, replaced by waves of 1,000-yard rushers. The monolith NFL had what I consider the best playoff system of all multi-team systems, with three division winners and a wild card team in each conference. It's true that these were lean times for a lot of perennial also-ran teams, but the good teams were really GOOD. Cinderella teams (like my local team this year) are fun to root for, but I think I prefer to have genuine powerhouses playing each other at the end of the season.

Agree with all of this. I think the concentration of talent in the 1950's was unique. As you mentioned, nearly every team had a very good QB. The Colts were basically the remnants of the terrible Dallas Texans, yet 6 years later they were winning the league title with a roster stocked with HOF players. It was interesting to read TJ Troup's book that detailed the 1953-1959 seasons...you got a feel for how the rosters were comprised and how teams could gradually get better or worse. It would be neat to have TJ Troup chronicle the 1950-1952 seasons in the same manner.

I think from a historical perspective, the 1970's could be the best decade. I think great matchups between powerhouse teams are more compelling to a historian than a period of parity. As others have said, perhaps this time period wasn't the best if you were living through it as a fan of an also-ran team.

If I had to watch a clump of random games from a specific timeframe...the era I would choose would be the early-80s...probably 1980-1984 to be exact. It seemed like you had a lot big plays on both sides of the ball, a lot of diversity in strategies and players, a lot of teams involved in postseason play but not so much that it seemed watered-down. I think after that mini-era of football occurred, most offenses adopted the conservative principals of the Bill Walsh offense...teams became more experienced at dealing with blitz-heavy defenses and adjusted, making the defenses themselves less apt to blitz and tending more toward coverage-based schemes...the game itself became very homogenized (if that makes sense).

[oldecapecod11]

Never mind the glitz and the glitter; never mind the neon and flashy colors; never mind the basketball scores;
and never mind the rules changes that constantly chip away at the very essence of the game...
the 1940s and 1950s were the years when we were presented with the creme de la creme,
the best 432 (approximate) football players in the world.
There were 14 teams and the roster size was 28.
14 x 28 = 432... arguably the best players on the planet. There was no room on the roster for inferiority.

Along came the AFL and saved the NFL.
The NFL was forced to sue for peace and adopted most of the AFL's innovations - including glamorizing high scoring.
Had the AFL held out for another three to four years, the NFL would have surrendered and perhaps we would be watching
a league with a different name.
The NFL had the right man at the right time - Pete Rozelle - and he led the group to the success it enjoys today.

Scroll ahead now to the "popular" 1970s... there were 28 teams and the roster size was 45.
28 x 45 = 1260... so there were 828 players that could not have played in the NFL in 1959 - if you accept the premise
that the league contains the best players available.
And you must; it is beyond dispute.
In fact, with a 14 team league, 828 players could have staffed a minor circuit with a 28 man roster limit.

So, except for the AFL and Pete Rozelle, scratch the '60s as '70s and providing the best product.
The "best" product was 20 years earlier.
And, for the teeny-boppers who grew up without ever seeing a best product game, take a gander at 2009.
The numbers are not much different.
32 teams and a 46 player roster limit = 1440 players.
That's 1008 players that would not have been part of the teams of the 1950s.

Add to this... the time for a game runs well over 3 hours instead of less than two.
Sad... soon the replay and commercial time will far exceed playing time.
Currently, the approximate "action" is estimated at 12 minutes. That's about 1 minute for every 4-5 commercials.
In the '50s, we traveled from Manhattan to the Bronx, left at about Noon so that we could watch warm-ups,
then enjoyed the 2:00 P.M. start and were home in time for supper at six.

Most of you were not born then so please do not judge what you have only seen on film and read as bed-time stories.
In the 2030s, you can tell the kids how great it was when players made the court report every week
and drugs made them bigger and faster and stronger.
Good Luck!

[BD Sullivan]

Never mind the glitz and the glitter; never mind the neon and flashy colors; never mind the basketball scores;
and never mind the rules changes that constantly chip away at the very essence of the game...
the 1940s and 1950s were the years when we were presented with the creme de la creme,
the best 432 (approximate) football players in the world.
There were 14 teams and the roster size was 28.
14 x 28 = 432... arguably the best players on the planet. There was no room on the roster for inferiority.



So, except for the AFL and Pete Rozelle, scratch the '60s as '70s and providing the best product.
The "best" product was 20 years earlier.
And, for the teeny-boppers who grew up without ever seeing a best product game, take a gander at 2009.
The numbers are not much different.
32 teams and a 46 player roster limit = 1440 players.
That's 1008 players that would not have been part of the teams of the 1950s.

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.

[mwald]

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.

[Ronfitch]

Its hard for a team in any sport in any era to win 4 championships in 6 seasons. Those 1970's Steelers teams were great at drafting talented players and Noll was great at developing that talent. Furthermore, the Steelers were great at finding HOF talent outside the 1st round. The players mentioned above as possible Free Agency losses were 10th round, 4th round, 16th round, and free agent pickups. The Rams and Cowboys also drafted well in that time period, but they were able to stockpile high draft picks by fleecing other organizations with ridiculous deals (John Hadl Polka Trade, Seahawks-Dorsett, etc.). The Steelers were able to have success with a minimal number of picks and always picking low in the draft order. I think this ability would have served the Steelers well in a free agency/salary cap era. Replenish your roster with cheaper, younger players while keeping your superstar players with big contracts.

Would they have won 4 SBs in 6 years? Hard to say, but if every team is in the same salary cap boat as the Steelers, I don't see what team would have been better than them in that era. Strong drafting and talent development is still the key to winning in the NFL.

The the case of the Hadl trade, it is tough to find fault with the Rams.

After the trade for Archie Manning fell through the week before; after Scott Hunter-Jerry Tagge (Devine's number 1 pick in '72)-Jim Del Gaizo (for whom Devine had traded two number 2 picks in '73) progression and fizzle, Devine was feeling the heat and desperate.

So very desperate. With a telephone. And with full authority to make trades. Just lucky he wasn't closer to Vegas.

[NWebster]

I love the 50's. First two platoon, free substitution decade that really resembles today but there was just so much experimentation going on. I've seen 5-2's, 4-3's and 3-4's all in the 50's. Shotguns, triple wings, pro sets. It just seems that for variety it has it all. The game was (somewhat anyway) integrated. I cannot get enough of the 50's. I kinda like the 80's as its the decade where I watched the games all live.