Need some sack totals

[MAZ1963]

All,

I am in search of individual sack totals for the following 5 teams from 1969:

Dallas
Detroit
New Orleans
Minnesota
St.louis

I know Pugh bad 13.5 and Eller 15 but gamebooks and media guides have sparse data at best.

Appreciate any help,
MZ

[Veeshik_ya]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that questions like this go unanswered?

There are researchers on this forum who could provide the data (when they're "damn good and ready", of course), or at minimum, at least acknowledge the person's question with a polite response or point in the right direction.

But no. Nada.

How quickly we forget about the help we received from others along the way...

[NWebster]

All,

I am in search of individual sack totals for the following 5 teams from 1969:

Dallas
Detroit
New Orleans
Minnesota
St.louis

I know Pugh bad 13.5 and Eller 15 but gamebooks and media guides have sparse data at best.

Appreciate any help,
MZ

Boys: Pugh 13, Cole 12.5, Andrie 10.5, Howley 5.5, Lilly 5, East 2, Edwards 1.5, Brown 1, Gaetcher, 1, Renfro 1
Detroit: Karras 7.5, Hand 6.5, Rush 6, Robb 4.5, Lucci 3, Walker 2.5, Vaughn 2.5, Moore 2, Naumoff 1.5, Weger 1, Missing 9
NO: Atkins 8.5, Rowe 4, Tilleman 3, Long 2, Talbert 1, Colchico 1
Vikings: Eller 15, Marshall 14, Page 9, Larson 8, Warwick, Kassulke and Dickson 1 ea.
Cards: Rowe 4.5, Heron 4, Walker 3, Stallings 2, Krueger 1.5, Wilson, Rosema, McMillan 1 ea., 6 Missing

[NWebster]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that questions like this go unanswered?

There are researchers on this forum who could provide the data (when they're "damn good and ready", of course), or at minimum, at least acknowledge the person's question with a polite response or point in the right direction.

But no. Nada.

How quickly we forget about the help we received from others along the way...

Sorry, sometimes four days go by without me checking the forum . . . guess I need to remember what my real job is.

[JohnTurney]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that questions like this go unanswered?

There are researchers on this forum who could provide the data (when they're "damn good and ready", of course), or at minimum, at least acknowledge the person's question with a polite response or point in the right direction.

But no. Nada.

How quickly we forget about the help we received from others along the way...

Has the one who asked the question complained? How do you know it went unanswered? Do you have access to the private messages I sent to MAZ1963? perhaps you need to mind your own business and not make assumptions because when you assume you make and ass out of u.

Mr Maz1963 got every bit of information he asked for and then some. But with you running your mouth you wouldn't know that. I would advise you quit taking cheap shots every time you are "damn good and ready" to do so. At some point you will alienate others here, not just me.

[JohnTurney]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that questions like this go unanswered?

There are researchers on this forum who could provide the data (when they're "damn good and ready", of course), or at minimum, at least acknowledge the person's question with a polite response or point in the right direction.

But no. Nada.

How quickly we forget about the help we received from others along the way...

Sorry, sometimes four days go by without me checking the forum . . . guess I need to remember what my real job is.

Good answer, Nick. Don't let the veiled personal attacks from the resident big mouth get to you. As you know I sent everything to Mr. MAZ1963 days ago. But it seems you and I are here to serve whomever bigmouth deems needs it. I think the literal translation for Veeshi_ya is "Giant douchbag"

Sorry for the anger, but his unceasing snot-nosed comments based on his ignorance got the better of me.

By the way, this is the private message I got from MAZ1963:

"John,

You just gave me a wonderful Christmas present.

Happy Holidays

MAZ1963"

But I guess Giant Douchbag forgot that he has zero knowledge as to what goes on between posters. But that does not deter him from his unwarranted, snide comments.

[Veeshik_ya]

John and Nick, it's truly touching how the two of you look out for each. We should all be lucky enough to have people that circle the wagon for us in times of crisis.

My apology for not picking up on the possibility of a private message. After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.

By the way, the actual literal translation for Veehsik_ya is "Gianteth Douchebageth". Don't you forget it.

[rhickok1109]

John and Nick, it's truly touching how the two of you look out for each. We should all be lucky enough to have people that circle the wagon for us in times of crisis.

My apology for not picking up on the possibility of a private message. After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.

By the way, the actual literal translation for Veehsik_ya is "Gianteth Douchebageth". Don't you forget it.

How could it possibly take you seven days to respond?

[Veeshik_ya]

John and Nick, it's truly touching how the two of you look out for each. We should all be lucky enough to have people that circle the wagon for us in times of crisis.

My apology for not picking up on the possibility of a private message. After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.

By the way, the actual literal translation for Veehsik_ya is "Gianteth Douchebageth". Don't you forget it.

How could it possibly take you seven days to respond?

Easy. I didn't log in for seven days.

[NWebster]

. . . . After all, this is highly double top secret information. Wouldn't want it getting in the hands of that annoying general public.

I'll actually attempt to give a real answer here, maybe it'll satisfy you, maybe not - but frankly I have no need for all the adolescent sniping.

John and I have, in fact, spent years collecting this info. Neither of us has any illusions of ever making any money off it or even recouping what we've spent in acquiring it. Moreover, neither of us is a web developer, or knows anything about that.

We do, however, want to ensure that it is published in a meaningful way so as not to create further confusion. For example - and there are millions of these little issues - the 1951 data I have for the Browns is from film and is therefore 100% complete (all assigned to individuals, none unassigned) but for the Rams from the same season the data is largely from play by plays and therefore there is a meaningful portion that's missing (not assigned to an individual). Just dumping the data out there absent that context could create the false impression that a particular Brown had more sacks than a particular Ram when that may not be the case.

We are working to compile and present the data in the proper context, but we've got day jobs and families too, frankly it's taking longer than i'd like too.

In the meantime - keep sniping at us if you'd like - but I can assure you there's no massive conspiracy here.