The New Democrat Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: QuoteAddicts.com

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Floyd Webb: Malcolm X- On The Chicago City Desk- In 1963

Source: Floyd Webb-
Source: Floyd Webb: Malcolm X- On The Chicago City Desk- In 1963

This was an interesting interview, because a group of Chicago and national journalists, who were interviewing Malcolm X.  Because Malcolm X a clear revolutionary leader for African-Americans. Calling for their independence from public assistance and America as a whole. That Africans in America should no longer tolerate bigotry, poverty and anything else that's holding down Africans in America. That they should no longer tolerate these conditions and that they should stand up and fight back against the establishment that they saw as the problem that was holding them down.

And that African-Americans need to grab their constitutional rights and no longer taken them for granted and expect other Americans to enforce them for them. Because in the early 1960s, African-Americans, weren't getting their constitutional rights enforced equally as Caucasian-Americans. And Malcolm X was being interviewed by clear establishment figures, people from the so-called mainstream media, from Chicago, as well as NBC News in this interview. So you had a rebel being interviewed by establishment figures in this interview.

I love Minister Malcolm's point about the names and the turn Negro. With African slaves being given European and in most cases Anglo-Saxon names. And not just being kidnapped and taken from their homes in Africa, but also getting their culture, history and even their names being stripped from them. Living in America as full-blooded Africans, but having to carry names like Joe Smith and Tom Johnson, even though their family originally had a Bantu, or Zulu first and last name. Depending on what part of Africa that they came from and their ethnic background. I just don't think these men were prepared to question someone with the intelligence and knowledge of history that Malcolm X was.




Saturday, September 29, 2012

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy: CBS Evening News- Walter Cronkite's Interview of President Kennedy, September 2nd, 1963


In September, 1963, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite sat down with President Jack Kennedy and interviewed him up in Massachusetts. To talk about the issues he was dealing with. Jack Kennedy, knew the power of TV about as well, or better than anyone in the 1960s and even 1950s. So he probably wanted to do this type of interview and to layout for the country what he was working on and wanted to accomplish. This interview happened fourteen months before the 1964 presidential election. And just a little over two months before he was assassinated and in late 1963.

President Kennedy, had an economy that was weakening and was trying to get a jobs plan through Congress. That included a large tax cut that cut taxes across the board. Including bringing the top rate down from 90 to 70% and the bottom rate from 25 to 20%. And this economic plan contributed to creating the economic boom of the 1960s. President Kennedy was also dealing with civil rights and making sure that Federal Court orders were being carried out. And that African-American students were able to go to once segregated schools and so-forth.

And this is the time that President Kennedy came out strongly in favor of civil rights and introduced a civil rights bill to Congress. And of course President Kennedy was also dealing with the United States early involvement in the Vietnam Civil War as well. President Kennedy, had a lot on his plate to deal with in 1963 and it would’ve been nice to see him at least try accomplish all the things that he wanted to do to deal with these issues. A lot of what President Lyndon Johnson got passed in Congress was finishing off the agenda that President Kennedy put forward and sent to Congress. But was unable to get through the House and Senate.
Liberal Democrat

WMAR-TV: Video: Sports: Orioles Beat Boston Red Sox, 9-1



The Orioles could really use a sweep against the Boston Red Sox this weekend, especially at home and at this point of the season.

Monday, September 24, 2012

US National Archives: Hollywood Roundtable on Civil Rights From 1963

Frank Mankiewicz, Marlin Brando & James Baldwin

Hollywood played a key role in the American civil rights movement because of the attention that these entertainers Could bring to this movement. Because of their fans and the money and attention that came as a result. Not sure without Hollywood would the civil rights movement of the 1960s had been as successful as it was. National news, TV, radio and print, didn’t really start covering the movement strongly until the massacre in Selma in 1963. Which is when President Jack Kennedy got behind the movement as well. It shouldn’t take a tragedy like that to get people, even the politicians to support the right causes.

This is exactly what the civil rights, or human rights, or freedom movement for all needed, was national attention. To get it national exposure, so Americans can see what exactly this movement was about. Fighting for freedom for all Americans and that we would all be treated equally under law. Not be discriminated against based on race, but be judged as individuals, people. And not be treated as members of groups. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s, never comes about without the media reporting on what they were about and trying to accomplish. And what their opponents were doing to try to defeat them.

And had it not been for the violent disaster in Selma, Alabama in 1963 where protesters were rundown, maybe President Kennedy doesn’t get involved the way he did and make that famous civil rights speech on national TV. I believe the night of Selma, because before that he was a passive supporter of civil rights. Officially being in favor of it, but not doing a whole lot to bring it about and push it through Congress. There are times when celebrity exposure can be a positive thing and when it can be negative. Its negative when an entertainer gets behind some cause, because they think it’s a fad and they need to be behind it, so they look cool as well. But its positive when they get behind something that isn’t popular, at least yet, but its the right thing to do.

Equal rights for all Americans was not popular in the early 1960s. It wasn’t popular after it was passed in 1964, 65 and 68. Perhaps contributed to Richard Nixon winning the presidency in 1968, with all the Anglo-Saxon Southern Americans voting for him and not Hubert Humphrey. But again America is not a majoritarian social democracy where we settle everything by majority rule. We probably settle less than half of our issues based on what the majority says we should do. And things like civil rights and equal rights shouldn’t be left up to the majority even if the majority supports them. None of our constitutional rights should be left up to the rule of the majority. Because a lot of times the majority is wrong and constitutional rights are not an issue where we can afford to be wrong. These Hollywood entertainers went out on a limb in the 1960s for a great cause.


Sunday, September 23, 2012

Baltimore Sun: Orioles Insider: Eduardo Encina: Orioles Right-Hander Tommy Hunter Hits 101 MPH Saturday: Could Find Home in Bullpen



Baltimore Sun: Orioles Insider: Eduardo Encina: Orioles Right-Hander Tommy Hunter Hits 101 MPH Saturday: Could Find Home in Bullpen

This could work well for the Orioles, because the starting rotation is set for the rest of the regular season and AL Playoffs. Which they have a very good shot at making at this point, so they don't need Tommy Hunter as a starter right now. Tommy Hunter has shown signs of being dominant as a starter in 2012 with his mid to upper nineties fastball that has movement and deadly breaking stuff as well. But he doesn't seem to very strong for more than five innings or so and struggles to get through five innings. 

As a long or middle reliever, Tommy Hunter could let it go so to speak and let it hang out as far as his fastball and breaking balls. Because he knows he's only getting probably at most thirty pitches or so and doesn't have to go six or seven innings and pitch well for that long in a game. Because instead he'll come into the game for an inning or two when an Orioles starter gets in trouble or to hold a lead. And give opposing hitters something else to have to think about in the game.  



Bernard Gibson: Charles Manson Interview- With John Aes Nihill

Source: Bernard Gibson-
Source: Bernard Gibson: Charles Manson Interview- With John Aes Nihill

As evil as Charlie Manson might have been or still is and he was clearly and evil man, whose responsible for the murders of a lot of innocent people and even seem to draw pleasure from them, that’s not the whole story about Charlie. You don’t put together a crime family like the Manson Crime Family if you don’t have some leadership ability. That not only draws people to you, but you can make them do things they normally wouldn’t do. Like good middle class teenagers, people who should be in college, going out and murdering innocent people, people who are complete strangers to you. Because you see them as part of some establishment that’s holding down the rest of the country.

Charlie Manson blamed his situation in life, on society and to a certain extent he was correct. Coming from a broken home, never knowing his father, barely knowing his mother, being shipped around as a kid. Doesn’t excuse the fact of all the people he had murdered, but he got off to a real bad start in life. And once he became an adult and got out of prison for the last time in life, he decided that he was going to takeout his frustrations on society, as much as he can for as long as he can. Charlie Manson and his young Baby Boomer soldiers, against the rest of the world.

What we saw from Charlie Manson’s power was not only the ability for him to make people do things they wouldn’t normally do, like things as evil as murdering people, but people who basically fell in love with him. And saw him as a God or Jesus Crisis, people who idealize a murderer. Which is what we saw in this interview. Even though people who are doing life sentences in prison, partially for hooking up with Charlie Manson. Who see him for exactly what he is. A cold-blooded murderer that would manipulate people to do what he wouldn’t do himself.




Saturday, September 22, 2012

David Von Pein: ABC News JFK Assassination As it Happened-11/22/1963

ABC News
ABC News, was such a small operation in the early 1960s. Sorta like the baby sister or baby brother of NBC and CBS News. They didn’t become a major operation at least until the late 1960s or early 70s, when Howard Smith took over as the anchor of the ABC Evening News. And probably not even a major competitor as far as first being in news when it came to the TV networks until the late 70s and early 80s. When Nightline with Ted Koppel came on the air and covered the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

ABC News, won a lot of rewards for their depth coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It made Ted Koppel a star and household name and if you look at this coverage of the JFK assassination, you don’t see a clear anchor of this coverage. It looks more like a news update or something. When CBS News went on the air, with this story, Walter Cronkite when their number one anchor, broke in right away to report this story. And the same thing with NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, they went their main people their stars. You don’t see that with ABC News.

With what ABC News had to work with back then and again being in third place out of the three networks and being so far back it looked like fifth place, I think they actually did pretty well. And were on top of the story. They were the so-called CW or My-TV, whatever that is, or even FOX. Being so small that they didn’t even have a news division, or weren’t interested in news at all. FOX, of course now has a news obviously. ABC, was a national TV network back then, but didn’t have the affiliates and ratings that CBS and NBC did.


Friday, September 21, 2012

Thursday, September 20, 2012

AP: Raw Video: Judge Denies Request to Stop Anti-Muslim Trailer


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on Blogger 

If this actress in this movie was misled about this movie that she was in, then she probably has a good case. That she should take to court and sue the makers of this movie over that and be rewarded compensation for that. Assuming she didn't know that she was going to be part of an islamaphobic film and I don't know if she was misled or not, but as far as getting the movie shut down, over that, that simply won't happen. 

We have a First Amendment in this country that protects Freedom of Speech, which movies would clearly come under, because they clearly have speech in them. And when they are in documentary form, they are delivering a message and perhaps intended to inform people about the subject matter that the film is covering. And seeing speech that you love or hate, is part of sharing and living in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen million people. We can control what we see and hear, but can't shut people up on our own. 

Suing people might be part of the American Way in America, but free speech is clearly the American Way and has to be protected. Whether it's peaceful speech, hate speech, accurate speech or inaccurate Speech. It's not the job of government to protect us from what they may see as dangerous speech. We have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves. 


Monday, September 17, 2012

AP: Video: Warren Levinson: Occupy Wall Street: One Year Later


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on Blogger

Occupy Wall Street started off as a progressive socialist movement a year ago, that was pissed off at Wall Street and corporate America as a whole. And seeing them get bail outs while they saw the rest of the country as they put it get austerity and decided that they were "mad as Hell and weren't going to take it anymore". (Or something like that) It was a very focused and fairly disciplined movement, especially for Progressives and Socialists who aren't known for discipline or even believing in it. And thats how they were successful in its first few months. "This is what's bad, we have the people with us and we need to stop this". 

And then OWS could go about  fixing the problems, instead of making them worst and were successful in not only getting attention from the national media, but getting people behind them as well. Even Democrats not so much the leadership, but some Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate who are so far to the Left as they are and also have a hard time seeing the center and perhaps center-left with a telescope, such as OWS. And they even managed to not only communicate what they believe is wrong with the country, as far as the economy, but were able to start to put together their own progressive/socialist agenda. 

That was about preserving social insurance programs, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what they would do about the "too big to fail banks", breaking them up or nationalizing them. As well as things like universal higher education, protecting organize labor and debt forgiveness for students and other things. But now OWS seems to be about complaining about ever society ill that the country seems to be going through. Jump from one problem to another without any real focus or discipline and living up to one of the negative stereotypes that Socialists have. They've become like kids who when they get a new toy, they see something else that they want and now have lost all interest in their first toy. They've become like children. 

That's how Occupy Wall Street started out, but by the late spring and summer they had already lost whatever momentum they were able to build up from the fall and winter of 2011-12 and started looking more like rioters or anarchists and with all of the arrests they started piling up. They were like fireworks that are lighted on July Fourth, that burn out with in minutes. And started piling up arrests at their rallies and events. And once a movement gets to that point, its hard for Americans who unless they are die hard supporters of you, to take you seriously. "Why should I pay attention to them. They are just some whacked out fringe, why should I take them seriously". 

And because of this, the Democratic Leadership, has never really gotten behind them. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats understand that there's a certain responsibility to being part of a major political party. That you can't afford to look like you are part of a fringe movement, because you are supposed to be the adults in the room. This is one thing that separates Democrats from Republicans who go out of their way to appease religious and neoconservative Americans. Democrats leave their children home with a babysitter when they go out. Republicans take their children everywhere including fancy restaurants and public events.  

Right now in America again unless you are a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, they look like some whacked out Far-Left socialist party. That are champions of big government and high taxes, which hasn't played well in this country for a long time. And worst than that, OWS looks like anarchists people who are so out of their minds they aren't capable of having an adult conversation, which is why they are struggling to be taken seriously.Even fringe movements need ties and have a base with reality and how the world works, so they can be as successful as possible. Even if it comes off as stale or old school to their supporters. 

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Public Resource: Video: CBS News: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years



Jack Kennedy came to the White House in 1961 with a broad agenda that included civil rights for African-Americans, Federal aid to public education, health insurance for seniors and an economic plan to deal with an economy that was slowly coming out of recession from the late 1950s, that included a deep tax cut. And yet most of his domestic agenda stalled in Congress despite having large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. And spent most of the first two years dealing with foreign policy. With Cuba twice both involving Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and of course the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Kennedy, did have a foreign policy agenda as well and was a tough Liberal Cold Warrior that wanted to open discussions with Russia. But wasn’t prepared to be soft with them, but take them on. And spoke out for liberal democracy not only in America, but in Europe as well, but wasn’t looking for a war with the Soviet Union either. And in the middle of 1963, finally took a tough stand when it came to civil rights for African-Americans and liberal democracy for them. Who were being discriminated and beaten in the South with the violent beatings that were happening in Alabama and Mississippi.

We’ll never know how successful of a President that Jack Kennedy would’ve made, one of the tragedies of his assassination. But he had all the tools of becoming not just one of the best Liberal Democratic president’s we’ve ever had, but one of the best president’s we’ve ever had as well. Just by what he believed in, but also how he handled the issues that came his way. The Cuban Missile Crisis and finally taking on Civil Rights as well in 1963. The question is how effective he would’ve been how he been able to complete his first term. And he been reelected, he effective he would’ve been at getting his agenda through Congress. Something he wasn’t very successful at in his first two years.

President Kennedy, was very popular when he died I believed, because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and because he was very likable personally. Which are the advantages that President Obama has today. But wasn’t very good at making Congress go along with his agenda based on his personal appeal. Had President Kennedy completed his first term, he would’ve continued to work on the issues, that he ran on as President. Across the board tax cuts, what later became known as Medicare, Federal Aid to public education and civil rights. And then the question would’ve been how successful he would’ve been at pushing that agenda through Congress.
Liberal Democrat

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Artist Jennette Brown: Whose Line Is It Anyway: Chris Walken Doing The News

Source: Artist Jennette Brown-
Source: Artist Jennette Brown: Whose Line Is It Anyway? Christopher Walker Impersonation

ABC use to have a show called Whose Line Is It Anyway, the American version of the BBC Whose Line show. And what it was five comedians including the host Drew Carey who would be given scenes and characters to play, but the comedians would have to act out the scenes with no script or lines. The comedians would have to act out the scenes off the top of their heads, almost completely spontaneously.
And they would do scenes like Hoe Down where they would have to do a song off the top of their heads, or Super Hero’s where each person would have this made up Super Hero with a name that no Super Hero, who is sane and sober at least, would have. And one comedian would start out with a name and as each comedian would enter the game, the comedian who came before would give the next comedian a name. So lets say Alcoholic Man would introduce lets say Mr. Clutz who would topple to the floor as soon as he’s introduced. And Mr. Clutz would do is act and then introduce the next person and say, “thank God you are here Scared Shitless", or something like that.
My favorite skit that they did is probably Weird Newscasters. Especially the two anchors and these two people would makeup the news literally on the spot. And would say something like, “our lead story tonight, 200 people reported missing or dead as a result of an attack by Killer Tomatoes.” And the second anchor with a weird character to play like a news anchor being played by race car drive whose had too much to drink or something. And he or she would say something like, “this just in alcoholism linked to drunk driving. Shocking I know.” And they would introduce the weatherman who farts every time he speaks or something like that. As well as a sportscaster who falls in love with every women he sees in the audience or something.
My favorite character on this show even though I don’t believe Chris Walken has ever actually physically been on this show before is Chris Walken. Because he’s a great comedian on the spot, who never needs a script to be funny, movies like American Sweethearts, True Romance and his appearances on Saturday Night Live are excellent examples of that. And Jeff Davis from Whose Line, does a great impression of him and that’s what makes this show great and how you tell great comedians from good or average comedians. How funny are they when they have to be and when they don’t have a script.

Mussie Tsegai: Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate

Source: Mussie Tsegai-
Source: Mussie Tsegai: Martin Luther King & Malcolm X Debate

This was the ultimate debate as it related to the civil rights movement and perhaps generally as well. Because it involved the two most effective and intelligent spokespeople when it came to civil rights and equal rights. And two of the most effective spokespeople when it came to individual freedom in general. Because before the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and to a certain extent after that, African-Americans didn't have the same freedom as Caucasian-Americans. Even though they had the same constitutional rights under law as every other American in the country.

African-Americans simply weren't getting their constitutional rights enforced. Which is exactly what Dr. Martin King and Minister Malcolm X were trying to accomplish. They wanted African-Americans to have the same freedom as any other American in the country, they just had two different approaches. The MLK approach was to show the country that they were freedom fighters fighting for freedom, but they weren't trying to destroy the country. Just the system that held them down and were going to accomplish it by exercising their constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Assembly.

Malcolm X's approach was different, that the way to destroy the system, was by any means necessary, even if that means violence. That what they were fighting for which was their own freedom just as the Caucasian community had, should already be theres. And that the racists should just get-out-of-the-way, or they'll be run over. That there wasn't any negotiation, because African-Americans already had the freedom under law and under the Constitution that every other community had in America. Which meant that racist Southern Anglo-Saxon bigots and other racist Caucasians, should either step aside, or they'll be forcefully removed by the African-American community.


Sunday, September 9, 2012

NFL Films: 1956 NFL Championship: Bears @ Giants: The Monsters of The Midway Invade The Big Apple



In the 1950s the best franchise in Pro Football were the Cleveland Browns, they won five NFL Championships. And a few All American Football Conference Championships as well and even beat the defending NFL Champion the Philadelphia Eagles in the late 1940s, when the AAFC was considered a joke. The Cleveland Browns weren't a joke, the weren't the best team in Minor League Football but the best team in Pro Football period but the two other dominant franchises in the National Football League in this period. Were the Chicago Bears and I hate to say it as a Washington Redskins fan, the New York Giants they met for the NFL Championship 3-4 times in this decade, the Baltimore Colts. With Head Coach Weeb Ewbank, QB Johnny Unitas, HB Lenny Moore and many others came on late in this decade and won back to back NFL Championships in the late 1950s. But the Bears were the best of the West in the NFL and the Giants were one of the best in the East, right there with the Browns. So its natural that the Bears and Giants would be playing for the NFL Championship on a regular basis in the 1950s.

When you think of the Giants of the 1950s, you really only need to think of two people, Vince Lombardi who then was the Giants Offensive Coordinator. And Tom Landry who then was the Giants Defensive Coordinator, both who of course would go on to be Hall of Famers as Head Coaches with the. Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys respectively, Jim Howell the Giants Head Coach really didn't have to do much of anything with Lombardi running the offense and Landry running the defense but step in when things weren't going well I guess. Which didn't happen very often, Lombardi put together the offensive game plan and the offensive lineup and Landry did the same thing for the defense. And Lombardi had QB Charlie Connerly, HB Frank Gifford, FB Alex Webster, WR Tobin Rote and a solid Offensive Line and Landry had DT Andy Robostelli, DT Rosey Greer and many others on defense.

Even though the Giants would go onto winning two other Eastern Conference Championships in this decade. 1956 was the last NFL Championship they would win until 1986, they lost to the Colts in 1958 and 59, lost to the Packers in 1962 and the Bears in 1963 but they were in contention to the end of the early 1960s. The Bears would win another NFL Championship beating the Giants in 1963 but this was towards the end of the era that the Giants and Bears dominated the NFL.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Shark Throwback: NFL 1967- The Story of The New Orleans Saints



Source: Shark Throwback: NFL 1967- The Story of The New Orleans Saints

The New Orleans Saints early on in its history looked like a division 2 minor league club of an NFL Franchise. They looked like a not ready for prime time operation, with an owner who had nothing to do with pro football before New Orleans. With a general manager who had just as little or as much pro football experience as his boss. With a head coach that literally came from the Minor Leagues, I believe from a franchise in Richmond or Norfolk, Virginia. Because they were so cheap and so minor league, they were awful for their first ten years or so.

The Saints weren’t even in playoff contention until 1978, when they were 7-9 and 8-8 in 78 and 79. The Saints are remembered for not even having a winning season in their first twenty seasons, 1967-86. When general manager Jim Finks and head coach Jim Mora came in 1986, owner Tom Benson a few years before that. Things started changing in New Orleans in the mid 1980s, Bum Phillips made them somewhat competitive in the early 1980s, after another 2-14 season in 1980. But they were finally putting something together in the late 70s and since these are the New Orleans Saints, they weren’t able to build on that. Going from 8-8 in 1979 to 2-14 in 1980.

Archie Manning of course the father of two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks in Peyton and Eli Manning, is probably the best quarterback in Saints history, at least before Drew Brees arrived in 2006. Played eleven seasons in New Orleans 1971-81 and was a Pro Bowler there. Never played on a winning team in New Orleans, got close a couple of times in the 1970s, but never played for a winner. And this franchise back then had their share of Pro Bowlers, like WR Danny Abramowicz, RB Chuck Muncie who would move on and have a good career with the San Diego Chargers.

They also had WR John Jefferson who again would move on and have a good career with the Washington Redskins. As well as WR John Gilliam who would move on and have a good career with the Minnesota Vikings. Notice where I’m going with this, they would draft good players and then trade them away. Except for Archie Manning because they didn’t want to pay them. One thing I don’t understand about the Saints of this era, is their fans their management is pretty easy to understand.

They were simply cheap and not willing to invest the resources to build a long-term winner that could compete in the National Football Conference. Even though they always had the fan base that would allow them to win in Southern Louisiana and Southwestern Mississippi and perhaps the State of Louisiana as a whole. But their fans have been very loyal to the Saints for this whole time and really love football.



CBS Sports: NFL 1964: Football Highlights



Thank God for NFL Films!

Monday, September 3, 2012

NFL Films: America's Game 1989 San Francisco 49ers: The Best 49ers Team of All Time



If you look at great dominant teams, its teams that just doesn't win consistently or does enough to win. But teams that win almost all of the time and dominates their competition, where their games look like cakewalks, their opponents look out of place, what are you doing here, you have no business. Here they are going to kick your ass, you don't have a chance in Hell of winning this game. There are few teams that meet that definition, the 78 Steelers, 85 Bears, 84 49ers, the 91 Redskins, the 77 Cowboys, the 71 Cowboys come to mind, perhaps even the 86 Giants.

But its hard to find a team thats more dominant then the 89 San Francisco 49ers, a team that had the best offense in the NFL and. Perhaps even the best defense in the NFL as well, thats how they dominated the way they did, because you couldn't stop them on defense, what you hoped is that they make a mistake and you capitalize. On it and you can hold them to a field goal or get a takeaway, because the 89 49ers didn't beat themselves in 1989. They could blow you out on offense and they could shut you down on defense, they were loaded across the board on both offense and defense, with some of the best players not only in the league but to ever play the game.

To think about the 89 49ers, lets start with the coaching staff, George Siefert already one of the best Head Coaches in the NFL in his rookie season. Mike Holmgren future Super Bowl winning Head Coach with the Green Bay Packers and Ray Rhoades, future NFL Head Coach with both the Philadelphia Eagles and Green Bay Packers.

And with the players you have to start with QB Joe Montana the best QB in the NFL at that point and one of the top three QB's of all time, a lot of people think he's the best. WR Jerry Rice the best WR in the NFL at this point and probably the best of all time, RB Roger Craig the best all around RB in the NFL at this point and someone who should be in the Hall of Fame. WR John Taylor another Pro Bowler who would've been the number one WR on most teams in the NFL, TE Brent Jones another Pro Bowler. FB Tom Rathman and all around FB who was probably a good enough runner to be a feature RB but he played with Roger Craig.

When you talk about the 1980s 49ers as great as their offenses were, you also have to talk about the great defenses that they had. Because after they won Super Bowl 16, except for 1982, every year they had one of the best defenses in the league every year. They had the best NT in football in Michael Carter, the best DB in the NFL in Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott, one of the best pass rushers in the NFL. In Rush End Charles Haley, DE's Pierce Holt and Kevin Hagan, they could get to you with their DL or blitz you and not get beat in the secondary and mixed up their defenses very well. This is why the 89 49ers were so dominant and I believe one of the top three teams of all time.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

NFL Films: The Young, The Old and The Bold: The 1960s NFL



The NFL of the 1960s was a great decade for the NFL for several reasons and just because of the Super Bowl. That started in January, 1967 but the National Football League had the American Football League to compete with, which meant a lot of great players, people who would end up in the Hall of Fame. Like Len Dawson QB with the Kansas City Chiefs, LB Willy Lanier also with the Chiefs and many others who were overlooked by the NFL, because they went to small schools. Or were drafted in the NFL but were cut there because they were behind several other players or perhaps not used. In the right way, got their opportunity in the AFL and made the most of it. It also meant that several cities that were overlooked by the NFL would get their opportunity at Pro Football. To have their own franchise, like Kansas City but also Buffalo, Houston, Denver, San Diego, Oakland, Cincinnati, Boston and Miami. Which meant the NFL had serious competition from a league, that was producing players that were good enough to play in the NFL. The 1960s was so important, because it was the decade that the NFL passed Major League Baseball as the number one Pro Sports League in the United States.

The 1960s was the last decade for the NFL that it was the league that it was always suppose to be. The last decade that every NFL franchise played their games on grass, instead of Artificial Turf, the last decade that every franchise played their games outdoors, not in indoor stadiums. The last decade where the NFL Championship was played every year in football weather, where the games were played in cold frigid weather. Championship games played in Green Bay and Cleveland in December, having to deal with frigid weather, snow and arctic wind. The NFL wasn't perfect in this decade, it was probably too brutal in some cases like defenders being able to trip and close line offenders. Being able to hit players after they are already on the ground and have been tackled and could do that until the whistle was blown but generally speaking the game was played the way it was designed to be played.

The 1960s was the last decade before the NFL-AFL Merger where the two best Pro Football Leagues were brought together and combined into the best Pro Football League in the World. The modern NFL which officially happened in 1970 even though they really already had that starting in 1967 with the Super Bowl. And it was the last decade where the game was played the way it was suppose to be played, before the game became more artificial like the fields.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

NFLN America's Game: The Missing Rings The 1969 Minnesota Vikings: A Champion That Was Overmatched in The Super Bowl



The NFL Network has a series called America's Game where they highlight the top twenty Super Bowl Champions, at least according to NFL Films. They also cover teams that they believe that just came up short, teams that they believe should've won the Super Bowl that year but came up short. A show that they call Missing Rings, is the show that covers the teams they believe should've won the Super Bowl that year but didn't. One of those teams is the 1969 Minnesota Vikings, I can buy the 1990 Buffalo Bills being on this list and perhaps the 1988 Cincinnati Bengals. Both teams were great and consistent that year and lost to teams in the Super Bowl that they could've or should've beaten. But the 1969 Vikings lost to a great team in the 1969 Kansas City Chiefs, probably the best team the American Football League has ever produced, that had one of the best defenses of all time. AFL or NFL, with a Hall of Fame QB in Len Dawson, a Hall of Fame caliber WR in Otis Taylor a Hall of Fame Head Coach in Hank Stram. A balance offense that could run or pass, they were simply bigger and stronger then the Vikings on both offense and defense. And if you look at Super Bowl 4, you see that, the Chiefs ran the ball down the throats and Vikings couldn't run the ball at all in that game. Or protect their QB.

If you look at the four yes four Viking Super Bowl loses from 1969-76, they have still have not won a Super Bowl yet. Except for Super Bowl 9 in January, 1975, a 16-6 game where the Vikings got their only score from their defense and then missed the extra point. All the Viking Super Bowl loses were by blowouts, 23-7 in 1969 to the Chiefs, 24-7 to the Miami Dolphins in 1973 and 30-14 to the Oakland Raiders in 1976. They lost to better teams in each of those games, the Vikings had great defenses if you look at their numbers in the late 1960s and 1970s. And they had some great players on defense, like DE Jim Marshal, DT Alan Page, DE Carl Eller. But the Vikings teams relied on their defense to completely shut down the other team's offense, consistently. Setting up good field position for their ball control nothing special offense and win games defensively essentially, you can get away with that until you get to the Super Bowl. And play teams that are complete offensively and defensively.

The Vikings lost four Super Bowls, three of them in the 1970s but they lost to four better teams. Teams that were very good on both offense and defense and the Vikings got beat up on both sides of the ball, they couldn't run the ball or protect their QB in these games. And they had a very difficult time stopping the run in each of these games and you see that in the scores of these games. Which is why I believe the 1969 Vikings don't even belong on this show.