Final Note - The NFL's Revenge Is Still In Healthy Seething Mode

In case you didn't notice, for a third straight year and fifth of the last six, no Old-AFL team is playing in the Super Bowl.

I did write at length about this last year, but it still blows me away that those Old-AFL teams (which will henceforth just be known as the AFL) are still sucking big-time when it comes to anything Super Bowlish. Hey, they can't even get there. Just so you know what those teams are, to refresh: Kansas City, Tennessee, Buffalo, Oakland, New York, New England, Denver, San Diego, Miami, and Cincinnati.

When you look at these teams, particularly as a big fan of that whole AFL thing, you can't help but think of them with a great deal of pride. How they rose from their humble 1960's beginnings, how the "Foolish Club" managed to wiggle their way into the vaunted NFL with the merger of 1970, how they brought so many cool innovations into what is the NFL today.

But if you remember, the "Old-NFL" really didn't take too kindly to the smart-ass Jets beating the Colts in 68. And they really really didn't like the Chiefs doing it to the Vikings the very next year when they blabbed all over the place that the Jets win was the flukiest of flukes. It took the Chiefs to show that the AFL was for real.

Thing is, it was almost as if the Chiefs blew it by rubbing the NFL's face in it.

Here's one more evidence I've assembled that shows just how inept the AFL teams have been on-the-whole since that Chiefs Super Bowl win. Here's the question, think about this: Since the merger, exactly how many AFL teams have won titles in two different time periods with two wholly different teams?

Just in case you don't want to think that hard, I can give you the answer.

Zero.

Here's the brutal truth.

The Raiders came the closest. They won in 76, then again in 80 and 83. You could almost say they half-way did it, but there were guys from the 76 team on the 80 team and guys from the 80 team on the 83 team. The 76 guys were much more scarce on the 80 team because that team was more of that earlier 70's fine Raiders team eventually getting their long-sought-after title, but the 83 team had a few more 80 guys on it, and both were quarterbacked and coached by the same guy both years (Jim Plunkett and Tom Flores, respectively).

Other than that, absolutely nada. There have been only three other AFL teams to even win a Super Bowl since 1970. Miami won in 72 and 73, but only those two years. Denver won in 97 and 98, but only then. And New England won in 01, 03, and 04, and only then. Since 1970 KC, Ten, Buf, NY, SD, and Cin all have big fat Super Bowl oh-fers.

Now let's look at the Old-NFL teams in this regard.

Start with Pittsburgh, who won in the 70's (74, 75, 78, 79) AND the aughts (05, 08). Again, two totally different eras with two totally completely different teams and everything.

Then there's Dallas, who won in the 70's (71, 77) and then in the 90's (92, 93, 95).

Then there're the New York Giants, who won in the 80's (86, 90) and the aughts (07).

Then there's Indianapolis, who won in 70 when in Baltimore, then again in 06.

Then there's San Francisco, who could be argued to have been so good for so long that it was one good solid team effort from 81 to 94. Even though the organization that sustained that excellence was generally consistently stable throughout, you can't deny that the 81 team was completely and totally different from the 94 team.

Then there's Washington, who in some ways was kind of  like the Raiders situation in that the Super Bowls were all relatively close together. That is, the "different era" qualification wasn't as clear-cut as the other NFLers. After all they were all coached by Joe Gibbs. But the 82 team was truly a completely different team than the 91 team as far as on-field personnel. The time differential from first to last for the Raiders: eight years. That for the Redskins: ten.

Then there's Green Bay, who may not count if we're just talking about Super Bowls since the merger. Their first Super Bowl wins were before it, in 66 and 67. They won it again in 96. But they could very well make this academic if they win this Sunday, which would make them the first team to win Super Bowls in three completely different eras.

So really, for all intents and purposes, the history of Super Bowlosity has been very ugly for the AFLers. AFL teams with championship greatness in at least two wholly different eras: zero. NFL teams with that kind of greatness: seven. Overall tally since that 1970 merger -- NFL: 31. AFL: 10. Oh, and that 31st hasn't even happened yet, but will this Sunday, Green Bay or Pittsburgh.

I've spoken of Odin's revenge as clobbering the Chiefs, but it can't be denied it has extended to the entire AFL. It is indeed just as much the NFL's revenge, still resplendent in all its rage.

And since this enterprise is only about the Chiefs and the Chiefs doing great Super Bowl kinds of things, I think it is wholly incumbent on the Chiefs to make up for it. So I must add a few notes about what the Chiefs must do to break the spell, to vanquish the curse that has befallen the entire endeavor that Chiefs founder Lamar Hunt worked so hard to bring about.

I usually finish up the season with a note to the current Chiefs general manager, and this is no different. Thing is, I've pretty much already said what needs to be said last week. This is just an elaboration of that one thing.

I went ahead and looked at other team's quarterback situations as far as their success in drafting and developing (D&D) that one key guy. I made an initial attempt to go through the draft histories of every team in the NFL, but that proved to be too daunting. Sure I'd have liked to have seen what the success rate of other teams is like, but I know there'd be those teams with great success like Peyton Manning for Indianapolis, and the busts like Tim Couch for Cleveland the very next year. Every team has their booms and busts in this area, I get that.

I just want the Chiefs to be among the most successful ones, and it is clear they've been among the lamest. Once again, the key is that the Chiefs never, not a single time in their fifty year history have ever drafted and developed a quarterback who's been worth a damn.

So what I did do is look at each team in our division. I noted only the QB's drafted in the top seven for every year since the time of the merger.

If you'll allow me, by team:

Denver: They didn't pick John Elway in the draft, but in 83 Elway announced he would not play for Indianapolis, so the Broncos traded for him right away and it was as if he'd been drafted by them. He went on to have a great career, winning them two Super Bowls. Other than that, the Broncos did draft Jay Cutler with the 11th overall pick in 06, and he led the Bears this year to the NFC title game. They had a high-pick bust in Tommy Maddux in 92 (25th overall), but they got so much mileage out of Elway that it didn't much matter. So far, Denver's D&D QB situation outclasses KC's by miles.

Oakland: One of the only things that makes KC's dreadful D&D QB situation barely tolerable is that Oakland's has been just as wretched. Think Marc Wilson (15th overall in 80), Todd Marinovich (24th overall in 91), and JaMarcus Russell (1st overall in 07). I can't say I'm not unpleased about all this, as every warm-blooded Chiefs fan certainly can't. But the fact is Oakland still had great playoff and even Super Bowl success with the guys they picked up from elsewhere, much like KC has tried to do its entire existence. They got fantastic play from Jim Plunkett in the early 80's and Rich Gannon in the early 2000's. And it must be said that Ken Stabler was drafted and he did do wonderful things for the Raiders through the early 70's (including that 76 Super Bowl). That clearly gives the D&D QB situation edge to Oakland over KC.

San Diego: Funny that the Chargers are renowned for one of the greatest QB draft busts of all time, Ryan Leaf in 98, but in a twist San Diego has actually made some of the best QB draft picks of any NFL team. They got marvelous work from Dan Fouts (3rd round, 64th overall in 73). Ironically for the Chiefs they picked Trent Green in 93 in the 8th round at 222 overall. Drew Brees, a guy who got the Chargers into the playoffs, led the Saints the 09 Super Bowl title, and is considered one of the best in the game now, was plucked in 01 in the 2nd round, 32 overall. And the Chargers were somehow blessed to get the first pick in 04 which they used to get Eli Manning, but this would only get even better for the Chargers because they traded Manning for Philip Rivers and other fine players who have helped the Chargers dominate the AFC West though the 2000's. Rivers himself has become one of the best QB's in the NFL. So the D&D QB edge here? SD by light years over the Chiefs.

And now for the Chiefs. Come on, be brave now.

The only even remotely bright spot was Mike Livingston, drafted way back in 68 (just a few picks before Ken Stabler, by the way) but a guy who never emerged as a true, solid D&D guy. The catch is that no Chiefs fan can dismiss the fact that when Len Dawson went down in the middle of our Super Bowl season, Livingston held his own and carried the load, indeed quite admirably so. For that we are eternally grateful to the only guy who was ever purely Chiefs-drafted and did anything, even if it was for that one, glorious moment.

Other than that, it gets extraordinarily ugly.

We had Len Dawson go for so long and Livingston play for so long with a weak Chiefs team in the 70's that our next meaningful QB pick was all the way out in 1979. Steve Fuller was taken 23rd overall that year, and to say he was a bust is an understatement. He was very highly touted out of Clemson, and to be honest I remember two things about Fuller. One was that when the 49er scouts were checking him out they actually liked better the guy he was throwing to, Dwight Clark. The other was that in making one last effort at being a fine QB with Chicago, he was overwhelmed in the 84 NFC title game against those same 49ers. Oh well.

Bill Kenney came along and did well, but we still knew we needed someone really good to take the reins. Welcome to one of the greatest QB busts of all time, considering the character of that draft. The famous 1983 class of drafted QB's included the great John Elway, Jim Kelly, and Dan Marino, as well as the very good Ken O'Brien and Tony Eason. But selected as the second of that bunch (yes, way before Kelly and Marino) was Todd Blackledge. Looking at the guy you'd have thought this was a no-brainer, the guy looked like a truly studly quarterback. But sadly, this is a team victimized by Odin's Revenge. Turned out he simply could not read NFL defenses and no amount of grand eloquent coaching could change that.

In 89 and 92 we picked up notorious forgettables Mike Elkins and Matt Blundin, respectively. Notorious because they were so highly selected (32 and 40 overall, respectively). Forgettable because, um, who are these guys again? I just remember watching those drafts and each time thinking in the depths of my horrifically scarred heart that this guy was going to be that guy, that one D&D guy who's going to be the first for the Chiefs, the first to actually make things happen out there on a regular basis. Didn't happen -- in the worst way, and I really forget why. I don't think either of them played more than a handful of games at all, ever, for anyone.

We grasped a bit for that guy down in the draft a bit with Steve Stenstrom in 95 and Pat Barnes in 97 (interestingly from Stanford and Cal respectively), but they didn't cut it. A lot because you just can't get Super Bowl quality play from a 4th round pick unless it is some spectacular Joe Montana-like miracle selection. But a lot because, you know, Odin, all that, you know...

In the late 90's, early 00's, Chiefs management seemed to think Elvis Grbac or Trent Green would be playing forever, and they didn't draft a QB again until 06, and they got -- yes the flunkie parade goes on -- Brodie Croyle. Yes, I thought the very same thing then, also... This'll be the guy. He'll get us there. He'll be the first one. Yay. As it is Croyle has started ten games since that time (that is is only ten is rotten enough) and his record is a -- I'm really trying to think of an adjective that is worse than shameful, but I can't think of it right now, I guess I don't need to though, because the record says enough -- 0-10.

Now, here's the thing. Scott Pioli and Todd Haley, here's the thing. Chiefs fans around the universe are talking to you.

That you haven't drafted and started developing a QB since the wayward Croyle attempt in 06 is bad enough. That you had to fiddle around with someone like Tyler Thigpen for so long is really awful. That you think Matt Cassel is the answer is not as bad because the guy is a gamer, plays decently, and had a fine year at least before the Raiders and Ravens games.

But it is reprehensibly inexcusable if you don't get your asses into the draft right now and get the next guy who'll take us to the promised land.

Everyone in the division and most everyone in the entire league has embarrassed us with their ability to draft and develop a good quarterback at least every once in a while.

Right now the Steelers are in the promised land for the third time with a guy at the helm who was the 11th pick overall a few years ago. It isn't some castoff or traded-for guy who'd already spent most of his professional wad with another team. Right now the Packers are in the promised land for what will probably be the first of several times with a guy who was the 24th pick overall a few years ago, a guy who is arguably the single instrumental reason they are there. It wasn't some veteran superstud who's wiping up the last vestiges of a great career -- remember how everyone hated the Packers for jettisoning Brett Favre so unceremoniously? What are those fans thinking now?

Remember how the Chiefs got great, proud play from Joe Montana at the very tail end of his career? For that I am indeed very grateful -- the dude got us to the AFC title game in 93. But that was it.

So in conclusion to this mostly fine 2010 year for the Chiefs, here's the real deal. The real deal if we actually want to be truly promised land-bound.

Mr. Pioli, get that guy you need. Get the one you know is a pro guy, a pro-game guy, a clutch player who gets the job done deep in the playoffs, and get him high. We've got, what, the 24th overall pick or something like that this year? Again Aaron Rodgers was a 24th pick. Drew Brees was 32nd. Dan Fouts was 64th for cryin' out loud.

And Mr. Haley, brush up on your quarterback coaching skills. Come on, this is why we got you -- you got the Cardinals into the Super Bowl three years ago, you are an offensive guy -- get going channeling Bill Walsh big-time because you're going to be developing him. Really Mr. Haley, this is your moment of glory, this is it. If you can't develop whoever Mr. Pioli gets you're worth little because the promised land is all we're after, and you ain't getting there without this guy.

We ain't breaking the curse unless we finally, finally get the best D&D QB guy there is for the next ten years. It is that simple.

And then, and then for the Chiefs, for all of the faithful AFLers, for the legacy of Lamar Hunt who came up with the "Super Bowl," we can avenge ourselves and restore the AFL's rightful place in pro football.

Hey, and maybe, just maybe the Chiefs will soon be the first AFL team to get that second-era Super Bowl.

Get that guy.
_

(Just a quick note about "the merger" for those who aren't quite clear on the concept. The American Football League lasted from 1960 to 1969, and throughout the decade it increased in popularity and gained more stature. The National Football League worked out an arrangement beginning with the 1970 season in which the AFL would join the NFL and become the American Football Conference -- with the new National Football Conference comprising most of the NFL's teams. To even out the teams [in 1969 there were 16 NFL teams to the 10 AFL teams], Pittsburgh, Baltimore [later Indianapolis], and Cleveland [later the Baltimore Ravens] offered to become AFC teams. The entire enterprise would be under the NFL heading.)
_