OK Aaron.

Didn't know that about Miami/Atl.  That's the deft hand of George Halas at work.  They did the same thing with Dallas, Minny, etc.

From RemembertheAFL.com
An AFL legacy seldom acknowledged is the fact that four cities obtained NFL franchises as a direct result of the competition the old league was forced into by the AFL: Dallas' Cowboys were created to drive the AFL's Texans out of business; the Minnesota Vikings were the NFL franchise given to Max Winter for abandoning the AFL (the AFL franchise later went to Oakland); the Atlanta Falcons franchise went to Rankin Smith to dissuade him from purchasing the AFL's Miami franchise; and New Orleans was given a franchise to repay the Louisiana congressmen who supported the bill permitting the AFL-NFL merger. It is most likely that if the AFL had never existed, neither would the Dallas Cowboys, the Minnesota Vikings, the Atlanta Falcons, nor the New Orleans Saints.

From the Falcons website:
Once the stadium, Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, was built, Atlantans felt the time was ripe to start pursuing professional football. One independent group which had been active in NFL preseason promotions in Atlanta applied for franchises in both the AFL and the NFL, acting entirely on its own with no guarantee of stadium rights. Another group reported it had deposited earnest money for a team in the AFL. With everyone running in different directions, some local businessmen worked out a deal and were awarded an AFL franchise on June 7, 1965, contingent upon acquiring exclusive stadium rights from city officials. NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle, who had been moving deliberately in Atlanta matters, headed on the next plane down to Atlanta to protect his league's claim on the city of Atlanta. He forced the city to make a choice between the two leagues. Of course on that memorable June 30 Rankin Smith and the NFL were the choice.

From Sports Illustrated (June 14, 1965):
NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle started the game last week with an announcement that his league will add two new teams by 1967. AFL Commissioner Joe Foss leaped in with a statement that his league will add two teams in 1966 and two more in 1968. The game, of course, is to guess which cities will get all those new pro football teams. About the only town not mentioned is Red River, N. Mex., because it is hard to play football on the side of a mountain. Both leagues would like to move into Atlanta, where a new stadium awaits. One NFL owner feels his league has Atlanta sewed up, despite that city's prominence in AFL discussions. The other new NFL city probably will be Houston, New Orleans or Seattle. In the case of Houston—the leading contender after Atlanta—there is an occurrence that may be more than coincidence. The Houston Oilers of the AFL balked at rental demands made by Judge Roy Hofheinz for the Astrodome and have signed a five-year contract to play at Rice Stadium. That leaves the Astrodome open for the NFL and, as the baseball Astros have proved, whoever plays in the dome plays before large crowds. The AFL, on the other hand, is talking about moving into Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit, all of which already have NFL teams, and Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami and Seattle. One thing the expansion talk has done is shove aside rumors that the two leagues might merge. Ralph Wilson, owner of the AFL's Buffalo Bills, told the Buffalo Evening News that the leagues were "on the one-yard line" in merger negotiations, but the NFL's insistence on indemnity payments killed the deal. "Now," said Dallas Cowboys Owner Clint Murchison Jr., "we're farther from a merger than we were in 1960." And so the guessing game goes on.

Atlanta was also in the running, with New Orleans and Miami, to be the new home of the Dallas Texans in 1963, who became the Kansas City Chiefs.

October 31

October 31, 1994:  The conditions for this MNF Halloween tilt at Soldier Field were a fright, in and of themselves. Monsoon-like conditions, with wind gust up to almost 40 mph made moving the football through the air impossible and wreaked havoc with the kicking game. The Bears took the wind in the first quarter but couldn't parlay that advantage into points.  In fact, an Erik Kramer INT to Bryce Paup late in the quarter became one of the game's turning points; given decent field position, the Packers were able to break the scoreless deadlock when Edgar Bennett scored from three yards out in the second quarter.  A BLF 36 yard TD run towards the end of the first half effectively put the game out of reach for the Barelys, as the Packers led, 14-0.

The Packers were able to effectively control the ball in the second half as Bennett rushed for 105 yards in the game, and accounted for two second half TDs, one on a one yard run and the other on a 13 yard pass from BLF.  Steve Walsh, coming off the bench to replace Kramer, threw a five yard strike to Jeff Graham to avoid the shutout, but the Packers answered with a Reggie Cobb TD run to make the final score 33-6

Other things of note:  both teams wore throwback unis.  Also, the numbers of Gale Sayers and Dick Butkus were retired at this game. I'm sure they were ecstatic about that.

(hat tip to the-kramerfamily, com and pro-football-reference)

CheeseCityFan:

October 31

October 31, 1994:  The conditions for this MNF Halloween tilt at Soldier Field were a fright, in and of themselves. Monsoon-like conditions, with wind gust up to almost 40 mph made moving the football through the air impossible and wreaked havoc with the kicking game. The Bears took the wind in the first quarter but couldn't parlay that advantage into points.  In fact, an Erik Kramer INT to Bryce Paup late in the quarter became one of the game's turning points; given decent field position, the Packers were able to break the scoreless deadlock when Edgar Bennett scored from three yards out in the second quarter.  A BLF 36 yard TD run towards the end of the first half effectively put the game out of reach for the Barelys, as the Packers led, 14-0.

The Packers were able to effectively control the ball in the second half as Bennett rushed for 105 yards in the game, and accounted for two second half TDs, one on a one yard run and the other on a 13 yard pass from BLF.  Steve Walsh, coming off the bench to replace Kramer, threw a five yard strike to Jeff Graham to avoid the shutout, but the Packers answered with a Reggie Cobb TD run to make the final score 33-6

Other things of note:  both teams wore throwback unis.  Also, the numbers of Gale Sayers and Dick Butkus were retired at this game. I'm sure they were ecstatic about that.

(hat tip to the-kramerfamily, com and pro-football-reference)

November 1

November 1, 1964:  The Packers came into this game at the Met and uncharacteristic one game below .500, but they exacted their revenge for an early season loss to the Queens by pounding them, 42-13.  Building a 28-7 lead, the Packers cruised to an easy victory.   Maybe history might repeat itself?

November 1, 1981:  The '81 Packers began their season in dismal fashion: after an opening day victory against the Barelys, they stumbled to a    2-6 record and lost all four home games.  Disgrunteld fans were calling for Bart Starr's head and it looked like another long, losing season.  However, Packers fan Ed Thompson organized a rally of fan support for the Packers after witnessing what rabid Lions fans did for their team the week before when they defeated the Packers in the Silverdome.  The atmosphere in Lambeau was electric and it had some effect on the Packers as they rallied and defeated the visiting Seahawks, 34-24. In appreciation for the fans' efforts, HC Bart Starr told his players to shake hands with fans after the game.  The Packers would rally and finish the last half of the season with a 6-2 record.

CheeseCityFan:

November 1, 1964:  The Packers came into this game at the Met and uncharacteristic one game below .500, but they exacted their revenge for an early season loss to the Queens by pounding them, 42-13.  Building a 28-7 lead, the Packers cruised to an easy victory.   Maybe history might repeat itself?

While there's definitely been a paradigm shift in FB responsibilities over the last couple decades... I think it speaks more to the players themselves.

Athletes with the size, speed and durability of a Jim Brown are few and far between. He just happened to be a big physical guy who ran like a deer. And Jim Taylor's stature would translate more to halfback / tailback these days. Though I doubt his 40 times would get him a sniff in the NFL these days.

MuddyMask:

Has me wondering why were the fullbacks so much more involved in the offenses in that era as opposed to the current era?

Brockington, IIRC, was technically a "FB" as well, wasn't he? 

 Hmmm. Maybe it's just semantics? In the old single wing, after all, the HB, FB, and wingback were the key runners and passers, the QB was just a blocking back. Allow me to quote wikipedia here - "As the term "quarterback" gained acceptance in the 1930s, it originally referred to the player's position relative to other members of the offensive backfield. Before the emergence of the T-formation in the 1940s, all members of the offensive backfield were legitimate threats to run or pass the ball, and most teams used four offensive backs on every play: a quarterback, two halfbacks, and a fullback. The quarterback began each play a quarter of the way back, the halfbacks began each play side by side and halfway back, and the fullback began each play the farthest back."

So by being closest, the QB probably had less options when he DID get the ball (probably just a dive). However, when the direct center snap came into being, he simply moved up under center and offense went from needing 3 triple-threats in the backfield (run, pass, catch, and it probably didn't hurt if you could punt) to funneling through the QB. 

Okay, so what does that have to do with the FB? Old habits die hard, and it was a different game back when the standard pro formation took hold - players were smaller and probably slower, so you didn't quite need the specialization - again, both HB and FB were expected to run, block, and catch. I don't know if it was necessarily size or if it was designated by who was the better player as to which guy became "HB" and which was "FB." But it didn't really matter, and considering the production most FBs had through the 70s - Brown, Taylor, Csonka, Franco Harris -  a player might be a bit put out if he were designated halfback.

This is where we start getting into my own crackpot theories about things....in the 80s, the HB started to truly become the primary ballcarrier, but the FB still needed to be a competent all-arounder. It's also pretty notable that the backfield became less egalatarian - you look at the teams in the 70s, they ALL had a primary ballcarrier but usually spread it around where another guy or two had significant carries. Csonka took the majority of the carries for the Dolphins, but Kiick and Morris got a good chunk of work; same with the Steelers and Harris/Fuqua/Bleier. Or even GB when they had the Brockington/Lane backfield. post-1980, not so much - you saw a lot more of one guy getting 250-300+ carries and the "other guy" (usually the FB) getting maybe 100. 

Why? Again, I think with the development of the game, the RBs HAD to specialize - your smaller, faster guy wasn't going to be able to decleat a MLB on a regular basis. So you needed one small(er), fast(er) guy to carry/catch the ball and the big man to be the hammer.* Add to this innovations like the various forms of one-back offenses and you didn't even really NEED two guys in the backfield if you didn't feel like it.

And as the players on defense (and offense) got bigger and faster and the collisions more violent, I would guess coaches would look at the "less talented" back and figure it was better to use him to knock heads, and save the "better" back for actual touching of the ball. Or at least, the NFL being what it is, one or two successful coaches thought that and others picked up on it, so now it's dogma.

So, those are my thoughts on it. Take them for what they're worth.**

* - the logic here may be a little shaky, since coaches LOVE having the big stud 230+ RB, who DOES have the size to beat up LBs all day

** - probably not all that much. 

Mr Bad Example:

MuddyMask:

Has me wondering why were the fullbacks so much more involved in the offenses in that era as opposed to the current era?

 

Brockington, IIRC, was technically a "FB" as well, wasn't he? 

 

 Hmmm. Maybe it's just semantics? In the old single wing, after all, the HB, FB, and wingback were the key runners and passers, the QB was just a blocking back. Allow me to quote wikipedia here - "As the term "quarterback" gained acceptance in the 1930s, it originally referred to the player's position relative to other members of the offensive backfield. Before the emergence of the T-formation in the 1940s, all members of the offensive backfield were legitimate threats to run or pass the ball, and most teams used four offensive backs on every play: a quarterback, two halfbacks, and a fullback. The quarterback began each play a quarter of the way back, the halfbacks began each play side by side and halfway back, and the fullback began each play the farthest back."

So by being closest, the QB probably had less options when he DID get the ball (probably just a dive). However, when the direct center snap came into being, he simply moved up under center and offense went from needing 3 triple-threats in the backfield (run, pass, catch, and it probably didn't hurt if you could punt) to funneling through the QB. 

Okay, so what does that have to do with the FB? Old habits die hard, and it was a different game back when the standard pro formation took hold - players were smaller and probably slower, so you didn't quite need the specialization - again, both HB and FB were expected to run, block, and catch. I don't know if it was necessarily size or if it was designated by who was the better player as to which guy became "HB" and which was "FB." But it didn't really matter, and considering the production most FBs had through the 70s - Brown, Taylor, Csonka, Franco Harris -  a player might be a bit put out if he were designated halfback.

This is where we start getting into my own crackpot theories about things....in the 80s, the HB started to truly become the primary ballcarrier, but the FB still needed to be a competent all-arounder. It's also pretty notable that the backfield became less egalatarian - you look at the teams in the 70s, they ALL had a primary ballcarrier but usually spread it around where another guy or two had significant carries. Csonka took the majority of the carries for the Dolphins, but Kiick and Morris got a good chunk of work; same with the Steelers and Harris/Fuqua/Bleier. Or even GB when they had the Brockington/Lane backfield. post-1980, not so much - you saw a lot more of one guy getting 250-300+ carries and the "other guy" (usually the FB) getting maybe 100. 

 

Why? Again, I think with the development of the game, the RBs HAD to specialize - your smaller, faster guy wasn't going to be able to decleat a MLB on a regular basis. So you needed one small(er), fast(er) guy to carry/catch the ball and the big man to be the hammer.* Add to this innovations like the various forms of one-back offenses and you didn't even really NEED two guys in the backfield if you didn't feel like it.

And as the players on defense (and offense) got bigger and faster and the collisions more violent, I would guess coaches would look at the "less talented" back and figure it was better to use him to knock heads, and save the "better" back for actual touching of the ball. Or at least, the NFL being what it is, one or two successful coaches thought that and others picked up on it, so now it's dogma.

So, those are my thoughts on it. Take them for what they're worth.**

 * - the logic here may be a little shaky, since coaches LOVE having the big stud 230+ RB, who DOES have the size to beat up LBs all day

** - probably not all that much. 

 ...and Eagles thumper Leonard Weaver pops a 41 yd td. Awesome!

November 2

November 2, 1997:  The Packers avenge an early season loss to the Lions in a Sunday night game at Lambeau, 20-10.  Packers defenders are unable to prevent Barry Sanders from rushing for 105 yards, but do manage to pick off southpaw Lions QB Scott Mitchell four times.  One such theft, by rookie Darren Sharper, is returned 50 yards for a pick six.  The Packers go to 7-2 on the season.

November 3

The bad with the good...

November 3, 1968:   After having defeated the Capital Division leading Cowboys the previous Monday night, the Packers could not keep the momentum building as they lost to the visiting Barelys, 13-10, in a game punctuated by one of the most unusual plays permitted in the rule book. Gale Sayers had rushed for 205 yards, and the Packers had missed 3 FGs that day (Errol Mann missed from 44 and 29 yards out and Chuck Mercein missed from 22 yards out; Mann would be finished as Packers kicker after this game), and after all of that the score was tied 10-10 until Donny Anderson booted a very short kick with less than a minute remaining which was fair caught at the Packers 43 yard line. From there, the Barelys invoked the seldom-used "free kick" rule and Mac Percival hit the game winner from 43 yards out and the Packers had just stand by and watch.

November 3, 1996:  Even championship teams hit bad stretches, and this week would begin one such stretch for the '96 Packers as they managed to defeat the visiting Lions, 28-18.  BLF threw four TD passes, two to Terry Mickens and one each to Dorsey Levens and Don Beebe, but Barry Sanders had gashed the Packers for 153 yards in rushing on 20 carries--an unusually high number for the normally stout Packers defense.  The win brought the Packers to an 8-1 record for the season.

CCF,  I think Gayle Sayers was the best back I ever personally saw play.  It was a shame he was injured so early. 

JBlood24:

CCF,  I think Gayle Sayers was the best back I ever personally saw play.  It was a shame he was injured so early. 

He certainly was one of the best I have ever seen. He was a rare type who could make cuts at full speed.  I remember the Packers grasping at a lot of air that day in November of 1968.  Sadly, his big knee injury happened shortly after this game.

Even with the techniques of surgery available at that time, he came back to lead the league in rushing before the knee failed again.  He was unbelivable how he could make people miss, and his acceleration was like a jet.  Adrian Peterson reminds me a bit of him, unfortunately.