Chuck Bednarik

SixtiesFan
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by SixtiesFan »

Speaking of Chuck Bednarik always reminds me of the 1960 NFL Championship game. I watched it on TV, age 10. The thing I remember is the Packers dominating the early phase of the game but only getting two field goals for a 6-0 lead, when they could have been up 14-0.

It's stuck with me ever since. A team that goes up 6-0 early on two short field goals instead of scoring TDs has a way of eventually losing the game.
RRMarshall
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by RRMarshall »

]Shipley wrote:
And that was what I didn't like about him...he would harp on how much better he thought the game was when he was playing than it was in the modern era. Art Donovan was the same way.

The difference was Donovan was funny...Bednarik wasn't.....
conace21
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by conace21 »

SixtiesFan wrote:Speaking of Chuck Bednarik always reminds me of the 1960 NFL Championship game. I watched it on TV, age 10. The thing I remember is the Packers dominating the early phase of the game but only getting two field goals for a 6-0 lead, when they could have been up 14-0.

It's stuck with me ever since. A team that goes up 6-0 early on two short field goals instead of scoring TDs has a way of eventually losing the game.
Not to mention on their first drive, the Packers turned the ball over on downs at the 6 yard line.
User avatar
Rupert Patrick
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:53 pm
Location: Upstate SC

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by Rupert Patrick »

RRMarshall wrote:]Shipley wrote:
And that was what I didn't like about him...he would harp on how much better he thought the game was when he was playing than it was in the modern era. Art Donovan was the same way.

The difference was Donovan was funny...Bednarik wasn't.....
Donovan was kinda sorta the Yogi Berra of pro football.
"Every time you lose, you die a little bit. You die inside. Not all your organs, maybe just your liver." - George Allen
User avatar
JKelly
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:44 am
Location: Reading Pa

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by JKelly »

I had the honor of meeting Mr. Bednarik briefly and while he may have been a bit gruff he was like a lot of guys from his generation and I'm not talking about just football players. They bitched and complained that there kids grew their hair and protested a war. Then they bitched that their grandkids sat around all day playing video games and watching TV. Most of all they bitched that whatever year it happened to be it wasn't as good as when they were kids it's what they did....................

Quite frankly any man that served in World War II ( 30 combat missions as a gunner ) has the right to bitch about any dam thing he wants to. So if he held a grudge, or complained about how the game changed, or annoyed a few country club members what difference does it make? I have no doubt that if he was alive and lucid he would have been proud that the Eagles won.

Now I have to say that as a diehard Cowboys fan I to would have liked the 1960 Eagles team to be the last Eagle team to win a championship. So it takes a lot for me to defend a former Eagle and I would have liked to pile on in this post but having met him I have an opposite opinion.
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by TanksAndSpartans »

JohnTurney wrote:
bachslunch wrote:Question: which position did Bednarik play better? Just curious.
my opinion is linebacker. easier to see the big plays. I always list him more as LBer than center...I wish we had a snap count...as LBer played middle, played outside in a way with that "Eagle" defense, over a tackle...to me less a middle linebacker than an outside stack backer.
I looked into this years ago and came to the conclusion that some journalists were confused about the extent he played both ways or maybe it was just easy/convenient not to go into details like which seasons he played which positions, but you didn't have to dig too deep to see he wasn't doing so for his whole career. I'd consider him a linebacker who played some center. I think the 1960 season was a special case where they asked him to play Center too and hopefully film doesn't discredit the fact that he was an iron man for that season and for that reason I don't have a problem with him being called the last of the iron men. Plus, how perfect is it he wore 60, won a title in '60, played 60 minutes in '60.

For what it's worth, in Fatso, Donovan made a comment that Bednarik couldn't block his grandmother or something like that.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by JohnTurney »

TanksAndSpartans wrote: I think the 1960 season was a special case where they asked him to play Center too and hopefully film doesn't discredit the fact that he was an iron man for that season and for that reason I don't have a problem with him being called the last of the iron men. Plus, how perfect is it he wore 60, won a title in '60, played 60 minutes in '60.
.
I think that is right, though there were games in 61 as well. TJ knows more about it. But I maintain, at lest from what I have seen is he was more a linebacker and was a better LB than C.
bachslunch
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:09 am

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by bachslunch »

JKelly wrote:I had the honor of meeting Mr. Bednarik briefly and while he may have been a bit gruff he was like a lot of guys from his generation and I'm not talking about just football players. They bitched and complained that there kids grew their hair and protested a war. Then they bitched that their grandkids sat around all day playing video games and watching TV. Most of all they bitched that whatever year it happened to be it wasn't as good as when they were kids it's what they did....................
Yeah, I've seen that called the "get off my lawn!" concept elsewhere. Happens with lots of old-timers, I hear. :D
User avatar
JeffreyMiller
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Birthplace of Pop Warner

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by JeffreyMiller »

One of the dangers of getting up close and personal with our heroes, whether they be Hollywood actors, sports figures, or some other pursuit, is we often find out that they really are assholes behind closed doors. I speak from experience having grown up an OJ Simpson fan. It might not always be the case, but it's usually better to just enjoy them in their craft and keep that proverbial distance between us and them, because the reality isn't always pretty.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend ...
"Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football."
SixtiesFan
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Chuck Bednarik

Post by SixtiesFan »

JeffreyMiller wrote:One of the dangers of getting up close and personal with our heroes, whether they be Hollywood actors, sports figures, or some other pursuit, is we often find out that they really are assholes behind closed doors. I speak from experience having grown up an OJ Simpson fan. It might not always be the case, but it's usually better to just enjoy them in their craft and keep that proverbial distance between us and them, because the reality isn't always pretty.

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend ...
During the 1970s, the big name pro athletes who got the most favorable media coverage were O.J. Simpson and Pete Rose. Why? They were the most friendly to reporters, both electronic and print. Needless to say, the personal foibles of O.J. and Pete Rose were (mostly) not known to their fans.

By around 1990, this had changed. A ball player could make millions of dollars in endorsements and never say a civil word to the beat reporters covering him. I read around this time (Inside Sports magazine I think) about an example. He played two sports, made more from endorsements than any other athlete circa 1990, and blew off the reporters covering him daily. The corporations liked him and that was what counted.

Guess who?
Post Reply