1963 Green Bay Packers Started by arnieherber, Mar 09 2014 0

oldecapecod11 · Post by **oldecapecod11** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:30 pm

1963 Green Bay Packers
Started by arnieherber, Mar 09 2014 03:18 PM

Page 1 of 3

44 replies to this topic

#1 arnieherber - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 March 2014 - 03:18 PM
It has been speculated that the 1963 Green Bay Packers were the greatest team of that dynasty. Still, they finished a half of a game behind the Chicago Bears in their division. One of their best all around players was Paul Hornung. Unfortunately, he was suspended that year for betting on games. Any thoughts on whether the packers could of won their division in 1963 if Hornung had played and possibly gone on to win the NFL Championship game for a three peat?

#2 coach tj troup - PFRA Member
Posted 09 March 2014 - 03:59 PM
....if Hornung is playing at peak performance on opening day, and say GBay beats the Bears 13-10, that puts Chicago in catch-up mode, thus the Bears games of November & December(rematch with Packers and ties with Minnesota & Pittsburgh) take on new meaning. Let us say for sake of argument that the Packers and Bears are tied for first on turkey day, Green Bay wins, not ties Detroit and finishes 13-1, while Bears finish say 12-1-1? As for mr. red zone, and his nose for the goal line....Green Bay on opening day had one drive that took them inside the Chicago 40 yard line(Kramer kicks fg)on 11 possessions, ....so does Hornung gain more than Tom Moore(24 rushing on 9 carries, and 4 catches for 32.....and the longest packer reception of the day of 18)? Starr completes 6 of his last 11 passes for just 45 yards against Coach Allen's combination coverages, and 3 interceptions. Only conjecture, yet play calling for Packers would have been different if Hornung scores a td early in game.

#3 BD Sullivan - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 March 2014 - 04:33 PM
That Thanksgiving tie resulted from the Lions scoring with 16 seconds remaining in the game, and wouldn't have happened had Jerry Kramer's second quarter extra point not been blocked. Four days earlier, the Bears managed a tie in Pittsburgh when they converted a 2nd-and-35 midway through the fourth quarter. Mike Ditka broke about 5-6 tackles along the way and set them up for the tying field goal.

If those events don't happen, the Packers end up 12-2 and the Bears 11-2-1, and since the tie would get thrown out, the Pack plays the Giants for the third straight year and George Halas looks to kill someone.

The '76 Steelers are another case: two-time defending champions who are seemingly out of it after a 1-4 start, then go on a ridiculous run where they give up a TOTAL of 42 points in the next 10 games. Both their starting RB's get knocked out of the AFC title game, and Oakland finally gets a huge monkey off their back.

#4 conace21 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 March 2014 - 04:58 PM
Strangely enough, I had never really thought about how the loss of the Golden Boy had affected Green Bay's 1963 title chances. I had put more thought in how it cost them in 1964. When he returned, he was horribly rusty kicking, making 12 out of 38 FGs.
I know some people don't like what-ifs, but it's conceivable that if not for his suspension, Green Bay could have won 5 straight titles, from 1961-65. What I wonder is, Lombardi was drained during 1967 and felt his message wasn't getting across the same. Would that feeling have come in earlier if Green Bay had won 5 in a row? Did the two year title drought provide a reprieve for the 3 in a row? Or was it simply a matter of the number of years Lombardi had been with the team before he burned out?

#5 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 March 2014 - 06:45 PM
I don't think we can say that the '63 team was the best of the bunch for the simple reason that Hornung wasn't a part of it. It's absolutely possible that Paul would have made the one game difference required to push the Pack ahead of the Bears but you can't do much better than 11-2-1, no matter who you add to the lineup. It's one of those questions that we'll never have the answer to.

#6 Shipley - PFRA Member
Posted 09 March 2014 - 06:46 PM
If my aunt were a man she'd be my uncle.

#7 Shipley - PFRA Member
Posted 09 March 2014 - 06:58 PM
Alternatively, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas."

#8 74_75_78_79_ - Forum Visitors
Posted 09 March 2014 - 07:04 PM
What I wonder is if there's any consensus that maybe Chicago that year was the better team anyway, even if GB did have Hornung? And of course I'm not talking from biased Bears-fans either. They did have George Allen as their DC and, like a team whom we just seen shut down a much heralded offense/QB a month ago, that D was quite the INT-machine (regular season as well as vs YA in the title game).

#9 Todd Pence - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:27 PM
If wishes were horses, we'd all be up to our necks in manure.

#10 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 12:37 PM
coach tj troup, on 09 Mar 2014 - 3:59 PM, said:
....if Hornung is playing at peak performance on opening day, and say GBay beats the Bears 13-10, that puts Chicago in catch-up mode, thus the Bears games of November & December(rematch with Packers and ties with Minnesota & Pittsburgh) take on new meaning. Let us say for sake of argument that the Packers and Bears are tied for first on turkey day, Green Bay wins, not ties Detroit and finishes 13-1, while Bears finish say 12-1-1? As for mr. red zone, and his nose for the goal line....Green Bay on opening day had one drive that took them inside the Chicago 40 yard line(Kramer kicks fg)on 11 possessions, ....so does Hornung gain more than Tom Moore(24 rushing on 9 carries, and 4 catches for 32.....and the longest packer reception of the day of 18)? Starr completes 6 of his last 11 passes for just 45 yards against Coach Allen's combination coverages, and 3 interceptions. Only conjecture, yet play calling for Packers would have been different if Hornung scores a td early in game.
The Packers may have missed Hornung's blocking more than anything. While the focus has always been on the strongside sweep, which was the play defenses absolutely had to stop, the weakside sweep, with Taylor running, resulted in more long runs. The reason that play worked so well was that Hornung was an outstanding blocker (as was Taylor) who could take the right defensive end out of the play. Taylor's average carry was 5.4 in both 1961 and 1962; it went down to 4.0 in 1963, with Hornung out, and back up to 5.0 when he returned in 1964.

#11 oldecapecod 11 - PFRA Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 01:02 PM
aunts and uncles
ifs and buts
horses and manure

The instructor said: "Almost everything in this airplane is controlled by hydraulics. One of the very few electric controls is for the pilot's seat. If you lose the hydraulics, press the control lever and move your seat back as far as possible. Then bend over and kiss your _ _ _ good-bye..."

#12 jackfu - Forum Visitors
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:29 PM
This kind of scenario can be an exercise in madness especially if it’s your team, but it also raises important issues with the playoff system or lack thereof. If they’d had a playoff system that year who knows how it would have turned out (I like to think that the Packers would have risen to the occasion and three-peated). With 20/20 hindsight and looking back to then vs. now, it may seem unfair that teams only ½ a game or so behind the conference/division leader would be left out. Conversely, some teams just have another team’s number on occasion and that may have been the case that year with Chicago and Green Bay. Like LA/Baltimore in’67, the left-out teams had their chances during the regular season, but couldn’t do the job. Not to sidetrack, but why bother with AFC/NFC, divisions, etc. now as regards the playoffs anyway? Why not just let the (?) teams with the best records constitute the playoffs? What if the 2010 Seahawks at 7 – 9 had won it all?

#13 byron - PFRA Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 02:43 PM
There are always arguments for/against the divisional set-up. I much prefer the structure of the divisions. It provides an immediate goal and fuels rivalries that add drama to the game. "Best records" doesn't appeal to me; too generic for my tastes. The bigger problem, IMHO, is how they keep enlarging the playoff field. The NFL needs to keep tight limits on the number of playoff teams, but they're so focused on making more money that they don't care.

#14 Reaser - PFRA Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 03:29 PM
byron, on 10 Mar 2014 - 2:43 PM, said:
There are always arguments for/against the divisional set-up. I much prefer the structure of the divisions. It provides an immediate goal and fuels rivalries that add drama to the game. "Best records" doesn't appeal to me; too generic for my tastes. The bigger problem, IMHO, is how they keep enlarging the playoff field. The NFL needs to keep tight limits on the number of playoff teams, but they're so focused on making more money that they don't care.
Agreed, if anything the NFL needs to cut the number of teams that make the playoffs.

I'll always prefer a structure like 1963. What more needed to be proven? Bears were best in the West, then they played the best from the East in the Championship. No other team has a case to be made.

#15 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 10 March 2014 - 03:56 PM
jackfu, on 10 Mar 2014 - 2:29 PM, said:
This kind of scenario can be an exercise in madness especially if it’s your team, but it also raises important issues with the playoff system or lack thereof. If they’d had a playoff system that year who knows how it would have turned out (I like to think that the Packers would have risen to the occasion and three-peated). With 20/20 hindsight and looking back to then vs. now, it may seem unfair that teams only ½ a game or so behind the conference/division leader would be left out. Conversely, some teams just have another team’s number on occasion and that may have been the case that year with Chicago and Green Bay. Like LA/Baltimore in’67, the left-out teams had their chances during the regular season, but couldn’t do the job. Not to sidetrack, but why bother with AFC/NFC, divisions, etc. now as regards the playoffs anyway? Why not just let the (?) teams with the best records constitute the playoffs? What if the 2010 Seahawks at 7 – 9 had won it all?
There's a really simple answer to your question: Fan interest. Without the playoff system, at least half and maybe more of the teams would be out of contention by mid-season. They might still draw fairly good crowds, but the TV ratings would tank.

#16 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:10 AM
Reaser, on 10 Mar 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:
Agreed, if anything the NFL needs to cut the number of teams that make the playoffs.

I'll always prefer a structure like 1963. What more needed to be proven? Bears were best in the West, then they played the best from the East in the Championship. No other team has a case to be made.

This is especially true in MLB where second place teams have absolutely no business having a chance to win the championship.

Roger Goodell's desire to add two more teams to the playoffs is ludicrous like so many of his other wishes and decisions.

#17 SixtiesFan - Forum Visitors
Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:44 AM
Reaser, on 10 Mar 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:
Agreed, if anything the NFL needs to cut the number of teams that make the playoffs.

I'll always prefer a structure like 1963. What more needed to be proven? Bears were best in the West, then they played the best from the East in the Championship. No other team has a case to be made.

A lot of current fans and writers don't seem to understand that prior to "wild card teams" being allowed, there were no playoffs like today. You "won your division," not "made the playoffs." Sometimes, like in 1958 and 1965, teams tied for a division and had a playoff game, but you had to finish the season with the best won-loss record in your division. Second place teams were through for the year.

#18 coach tj troup - PFRA Member
Posted 11 March 2014 - 12:18 PM
....sixtiesfan comment: "second place teams were through for the year"....was asked years ago by steve sabol my opinion of the best second place team of all-time due to the set up in the league pre-1970. pretty much knew where he was going with his question, and we agreed that '62 lions & '67 colts were the best, though I added '48 bears. eventually this conversation was part of the "missing rings" aspect for nfl films. to add fuel to the fire, lets say that green bay & chicago tied for first at 13-1 in '63....any idea where the play-off game would have been played, and the determination...are we flipping a coin?

#19 byron - PFRA Member
Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:51 PM
Quote
though I added '48 bears

They were very good. 10-2 and lost what was essentially their playoff game on the final game of the season to their cross-town rivals, the Chicago Cardinals. 1948 was a fun season in both the NFL and AAFC.

#20 IvanNYC
Forum Visitors
Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:24 PM
coach tj troup, on 11 Mar 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:
.... to add fuel to the fire, lets say that green bay & chicago tied for first at 13-1 in '63....any idea where the play-off game would have been played, and the determination...are we flipping a coin?

Prior to 1967, the NFL flipped a coin to determine the home site of a playoff game if two teams ended the season with the same won-lost percentage. According to the Hartford Courant (11/27/1963), a Bears-Packers playoff for the Western division title would have taken place on Dec. 22, 1963 at Green Bay.

Page 1 of 3
oldecapecod 11

1963 Green Bay Packers
Started by arnieherber, Mar 09 2014 03:18 PM

Page 2 of 3

44 replies to this topic

#21 Marble_Eye - Forum Visitors
Posted 28 March 2014 - 11:24 PM
You could throw in a couple more "What If?" speculations here. What if Hornung kicked in 1963 the way he did in 1964? That would have been a disaster for the Packers hopes. Another one, a little more oblique.... what if Lombardi hadn't cut "the original" Tim Brown who later starred with the Eagles? I believe as a kick returner and runner Brown probably was better than Hornung although Hornung's blocking was alluded to and may have been better.

Lombardi cutting Brown might have been his worst personnel mistake in a career that obviously featured very few of those.

#22 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 29 March 2014 - 02:32 PM
Off topic: I am not so sure the best team in pro football resided in Chicago or Green Bay in 1963; one could strongly argue the 1963 San Diego Chargers.

That aside, I do concur that Hornung was an underrated blocker; the geezer never received enough credit for his ability to block as a pro.

#23 SixtiesFan - Forum Visitors
Posted 29 March 2014 - 03:25 PM
Versatile John, on 29 Mar 2014 - 2:32 PM, said:
Off topic: I am not so sure the best team in pro football resided in Chicago or Green Bay in 1963; one could strongly argue the 1963 San Diego Chargers.

That aside, I do concur that Hornung was an underrated blocker; the geezer never received enough credit for his ability to block as a pro.

During his playing days, Paul Hornung was not exactly regarded as a "geezer." Furthermore, Hornung was frequently praised for his blocking. By the way, I closely followed the NFL in 1963.

#24 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 29 March 2014 - 04:14 PM
The term geezer is slang, when I use it. The word is not to be taken literally. I refer to small children as "geezers."

Hornung is not remembered for his blocking by the people I have heard speak of him in the more "modern era of football." They call him the womanizer, carouser, partier, the 'VERSATILE" (gotta love that word) player.....but few I ever hear of speak on how great he was as a blocker. Maybe I am not listening to the right people then, I suppose.

Furthermore, I never questioned your knowledge or how closely you followed the NFL in 1963.

#25 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:25 PM
Marble_Eye, on 28 Mar 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:
You could throw in a couple more "What If?" speculations here. What if Hornung kicked in 1963 the way he did in 1964? That would have been a disaster for the Packers hopes. Another one, a little more oblique.... what if Lombardi hadn't cut "the original" Tim Brown who later starred with the Eagles? I believe as a kick returner and runner Brown probably was better than Hornung although Hornung's blocking was alluded to and may have been better.

Lombardi cutting Brown might have been his worst personnel mistake in a career that obviously featured very few of those.
I don't think it was such a big mistake. Brown did not fit well into Lombardi's offense. Hornung was far superior to him running the famous sweep (so were Tom Moore and Elijah Pitts, for that matter). Brown was at his best running outside; the sweep required the RB to run through a rather narrow corridor, often with would-be tacklers reaching for him from each side, and Hornung had the size and strength to shrug off those attempts, but Brown didn't (he was 20 to 25 pounds lighter than Hornung). Hornung was also a master at setting up and using his blockers, while Brown tended to outrun his blockers or ignore them entirely to try find space. Those traits would not have endeared him to Lombardi.

#26 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:44 PM
Versatile John, on 29 Mar 2014 - 4:14 PM, said:
The term geezer is slang, when I use it. The word is not to be taken literally. I refer to small children as "geezers."

Hornung is not remembered for his blocking by the people I have heard speak of him in the more "modern era of football." They call him the womanizer, carouser, partier, the 'VERSATILE" (gotta love that word) player.....but few I ever hear of speak on how great he was as a blocker. Maybe I am not listening to the right people then, I suppose.

Furthermore, I never questioned your knowledge or how closely you followed the NFL in 1963.

Yes, you're listening to the wrong people; probably none of them ever saw Hornung play. Here's what Lombardi said about Hornung:

"In Green Bay, we had excellent blocking backs in Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor. Paul may have been the best all-around back ever to play football, and his blocking was one of the reasons for that."

Earlier in this thread, I posted this about the 1963 season:

"The Packers may have missed Hornung's blocking more than anything. While the focus has always been on the strongside sweep, which was the play defenses absolutely had to stop, the weakside sweep, with Taylor running, resulted in more long runs. The reason that play worked so well was that Hornung was an outstanding blocker (as was Taylor) who could take the right defensive end out of the play. Taylor's average carry was 5.4 in both 1961 and 1962; it went down to 4.0 in 1963, with Hornung out, and back up to 5.0 when he returned in 1964."

#27 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 09:38 AM
Fair enough.

From what I know about PH, yes, he was an excellent blocker. But, personally, I hear people say very little about it these days.

That was all I meant.

That aside, off topic: He did not deserve the Heisman in 1956.

#28 SixtiesFan - Forum Visitors
Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:29 AM
Versatile John, on 31 Mar 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:
Fair enough.

From what I know about PH, yes, he was an excellent blocker. But, personally, I hear people say very little about it these days.

That was all I meant.

That aside, off topic: He did not deserve the Heisman in 1956.

Try research on how Paul Hornung was looked upon when he played. A suggestion would be magazine articles on Hornung during 1961-65. You rate a player on how he ranked in his own time, not by what "people say these days."

#29 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 10:44 AM
HA!

OK, Sixties. Whatever.

#30 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:12 AM
Versatile John, on 31 Mar 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
HA!!!!!

Sixties, fellow, your reading comprehension skills leave little to be desired.

Once again, I KNOW the "geezer" was regarded as a great blocker. I was just stating you hear little of it these days. When I said he never got the respect he deserved as a blocker, I should have clarified it to mean, from what you hear these days. Correction: From what I hear these days!

Again, I do not need to do any research. I have relatives that played against him. I knew about him--his strengths and habits--during the Nixon years.

Capiche?

You can disagree and still be respectful. This will not be tolerated here.

#31 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:15 AM
I guess the part of "try doing research....." bugged me a bit. I feel he was being a bit argumentative (starting with Saturday) and nitpicking in this thread.

Besides, I edited the post before you read it.

#32 BD Sullivan - Forum Visitors
Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:15 PM
Turnovers were the key in both Chicago wins versus Green Bay in 1963.

*In the 10-3 opening win at GB, Starr was picked off four times, and the team fumbled once, which led to the Bear FG. The Packers also had the ball for just 43 plays the entire game.

*In the 26-7 loss at Chicago, the Packers turned the ball over seven times, including five interceptions. To a lesser extent, they stuck with backup QB John Roach too long, not yanking him until late in the third quarter--when GB trailed 16-0--and inserting Bratkowski, who had minimal success.

#33 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 12:18 PM
Versatile John, on 29 Mar 2014 - 2:32 PM, said:
Off topic: I am not so sure the best team in pro football resided in Chicago or Green Bay in 1963; one could strongly argue the 1963 San Diego Chargers.

I think Alworth, Mix, and Ladd could have started for the Packers, but at the other 19 positions, the Packers had better players and, at nine or ten of those positions, they had far superior players. If the played 10 games, I think the Packers win all 10 by an average margin of 20 to 30 points.

#34 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:27 PM
I tend to agree personnel-wise with the Packers, but I think you are selling some of the SD guys short.

Offensively, Ernie Wright was arguably as good as Skoronksi, IMO. Kramer was a better pure athlete at tight end, but Dave Kocourek was a helluva tight end in his own right. You would take Moore over Lowe at halfback? I sure wouldn't. Hornung, yes, but not Moore over Paul Lowe.

Defensively, I would take Dick Harris over Whittenton. I think Maguire was better than Forester (I do not like Paul Maguire, by the way.). Wasn't Ladd hurt in 1963?

You can say what you want, but the Packers did not finish the job. The Bears defense had some real hosses on it, so it would have been interesting to see the Chargers offense against that defense. Larry Morris, Rosey Taylor, Earl Leggett, Atkins, Joe Fortunato, the great Bill George, Richie Petitbon, etc.

#35 NWebster - Forum Visitors
Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:38 PM
Versatile John, on 31 Mar 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:
I tend to agree personnel-wise with the Packers, but I think you are selling some of the SD guys short.

Offensively, Ernie Wright was arguably as good as Skoronksi, IMO. Kramer was a better pure athlete at tight end, but Dave Kocourek was a helluva tight end in his own right. You would take Moore over Lowe at halfback? I sure wouldn't. Hornung, yes, but not Moore over Paul Lowe.

Defensively, I would take Dick Harris over Whittenton. I think Maguire was better than Forester (I do not like Paul Maguire, by the way.). Wasn't Ladd hurt in 1963?

You can say what you want, but the Packers did not finish the job. The Bears defense had some real hosses on it, so it would have been interesting to see the Chargers offense against that defense. Larry Morris, Rosey Taylor, Earl Leggett, Atkins, Joe Fortunato, the great Bill George, Richie Petitbon, etc.

I had a nice long conversation with Coach Troup this weekend - can anyone come up with a starting DB in the AFL pre 1965 who would supplant an NFL counterpart? Keep in mind Willie Brown is still a young Bronco at this point. Was passing so stong in the AFL because it was a forward looking sir it out league or because O Coordinators with good eyes exploited the easiest area to exploit?

#36 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 07:13 PM
Pre-1965, probably not. But the KC Chiefs, in the late 1960s, with Marsalis, Kearney, Thomas and Robinson could play with any of them.

The Raiders in the late 1960s with Nemiah Wilson, Brown, George Atkinson and Dave Grayson were damn good.

But, in 1965, the Broncos had Brown, Miller Farr and Austin Gonsoulin as a pretty talented secondary.

But, as to your question: No, I cannot.

#37 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:41 PM
Versatile John, on 31 Mar 2014 - 6:27 PM, said:
I tend to agree personnel-wise with the Packers, but I think you are selling some of the SD guys short.

Offensively, Ernie Wright was arguably as good as Skoronksi, IMO. Kramer was a better pure athlete at tight end, but Dave Kocourek was a helluva tight end in his own right. You would take Moore over Lowe at halfback? I sure wouldn't. Hornung, yes, but not Moore over Paul Lowe.

Defensively, I would take Dick Harris over Whittenton. I think Maguire was better than Forester (I do not like Paul Maguire, by the way.). Wasn't Ladd hurt in 1963?

You can say what you want, but the Packers did not finish the job. The Bears defense had some real hosses on it, so it would have been interesting to see the Chargers offense against that defense. Larry Morris, Rosey Taylor, Earl Leggett, Atkins, Joe Fortunato, the great Bill George, Richie Petitbon, etc.
Wright may have been as good as Skoronski, but he certainly wasn't better than Gregg, and I've already replaced Skoronski with Mix

Moore-Lowe is a tough call, I admit, but I don't think Lowe would have fit well into Lombardi's offense. OTOH, Moore might not have fit well into Gillman's offense. Harris was one of the best in the AFL, certainly, but AFL defensive backs were notoriously bad in the early years. DB was the very lowest priority for the AFL, which is one big reason the league was so pass-happy. I doubt that he could have beat out Whittenton. And I can't see any basis for ranking Maguire, who was never all-AFL, over Forester, who was a 3-time All-Pro. LB was the next lowest priority to DB in the AFL and the linebacking, overall, was not nearly as good as it was in the NFL.

Of course, it's all opinion, but it makes for a good discussion.

#38 Versatile John - PFRA Member
Posted 31 March 2014 - 08:59 PM
No, Ernie Wright was not better than Forrest Gregg; I agree on that. But, Mix and Wright were a great OT tandem.

Maguire was a two-time Pro Bowler and three-times an All-Pro. Perhaps that was as a punter. I did forget about Forester; my fault on that. I do know for a fact Maguire was a better punter, though.

#39 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 01 April 2014 - 02:34 AM
NWebster, on 31 Mar 2014 - 6:38 PM, said:
I had a nice long conversation with Coach Troup this weekend - can anyone come up with a starting DB in the AFL pre 1965 who would supplant an NFL counterpart? Keep in mind Willie Brown is still a young Bronco at this point. Was passing so stong in the AFL because it was a forward looking sir it out league or because O Coordinators with good eyes exploited the easiest area to exploit?

Was passing in the AFL really that strong or was it just plentiful. AFL teams threw the ball 4-5 times a game more than NFL teams but yards per completion was comparable, between 13 and 15 every season (AFL very slightly higher), so the wide open reputation that the league had is somewhat exaggerated.

The reason I question the quality of AFL passing was the TD-Int ratio which was on the minus side every season (the NFL was on the plus side three times in the 60s) and the poor completion percentages which were under 50 every year while the NFL was over 50 every year. Also, the NFL's average YPA was higher, sometimes almost a full yard, every season except 1969 (7.0 to 6.9).

Thoughts?

#40 SixtiesFan - Forum Visitors
Posted 01 April 2014 - 10:01 AM
JohnH19, on 01 Apr 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:
Was passing in the AFL really that strong or was it just plentiful. AFL teams threw the ball 4-5 times a game more than NFL teams but yards per completion was comparable, between 13 and 15 every season (AFL very slightly higher), so the wide open reputation that the league had is somewhat exaggerated.

The reason I question the quality of AFL passing was the TD-Int ratio which was on the minus side every season (the NFL was on the plus side three times in the 60s) and the poor completion percentages which were under 50 every year while the NFL was over 50 every year. Also, the NFL's average YPA was higher, sometimes almost a full yard, every season except 1969 (7.0 to 6.9).

Thoughts?

As someone who watched both leagues on TV in the early 1960's, the NFL had more great offensive players (Brown, Unitas, Tittle to Shofner, Taylor, Jurgensen, etc) and was more exciting and interesting.

Page 2 of 3
oldecapecod 11

1963 Green Bay Packers
Started by arnieherber, Mar 09 2014 03:18 PM

Page 3 of 3

44 replies to this topic

#41 ronfitch - Forum Visitors
Posted 01 April 2014 - 12:14 PM
JohnH19, on 01 Apr 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:
Was passing in the AFL really that strong or was it just plentiful. AFL teams threw the ball 4-5 times a game more than NFL teams but yards per completion was comparable, between 13 and 15 every season (AFL very slightly higher), so the wide open reputation that the league had is somewhat exaggerated.

The reason I question the quality of AFL passing was the TD-Int ratio which was on the minus side every season (the NFL was on the plus side three times in the 60s) and the poor completion percentages which were under 50 every year while the NFL was over 50 every year. Also, the NFL's average YPA was higher, sometimes almost a full yard, every season except 1969 (7.0 to 6.9).

Thoughts?

Cold Hard Football Facts ran numbers a few years ago and their (or his?) conclusion was that - based on many metrics - that the AFL's passing game was well behind that of the NFL and the AFL teams did not really pass much more than the NFL teams in comparing leagues year-to-year:

http://www.coldhardf...-is-wrong/6911/

In the article, they say that they based their analysis on data from ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia.

#42 rhickok1109 - PFRA Member
Posted 01 April 2014 - 04:40 PM
JohnH19, on 01 Apr 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:
Was passing in the AFL really that strong or was it just plentiful. AFL teams threw the ball 4-5 times a game more than NFL teams but yards per completion was comparable, between 13 and 15 every season (AFL very slightly higher), so the wide open reputation that the league had is somewhat exaggerated.

The reason I question the quality of AFL passing was the TD-Int ratio which was on the minus side every season (the NFL was on the plus side three times in the 60s) and the poor completion percentages which were under 50 every year while the NFL was over 50 every year. Also, the NFL's average YPA was higher, sometimes almost a full yard, every season except 1969 (7.0 to 6.9).

Thoughts?
I don't think there's any easy answer, but I would suggest that the two biggest factors were the use of zone defenses and the inaccuracy of quarterbacks.

Because of the lack of good defensive backs, the AFL used an awful lot of zone coverage in its early years. The NFL used very little zone. Normally, zone defenses will yield higher completion percentages, lower interception percentages, and lower YPC.

But that's not true against inaccurate quarterbacks, and the AFL had a lot of scatter-armed quarterbacks. While an accurate passer can cut a zone to pieces, an inaccurate passer can't. Against a man defense, a bad throw (especially an overthrow) is almost always going to be an incompletion. Against a zone, it's much more likely to result in an interception. And it should go without saying that an inaccurate passer is also going to have a lower completion percentge, regardless of the defense.

#43 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 01 April 2014 - 10:13 PM
rhickok1109, on 01 Apr 2014 - 4:40 PM, said:
I don't think there's any easy answer, but I would suggest that the two biggest factors were the use of zone defenses and the inaccuracy of quarterbacks.

Because of the lack of good defensive backs, the AFL used an awful lot of zone coverage in its early years. The NFL used very little zone. Normally, zone defenses will yield higher completion percentages, lower interception percentages, and lower YPC.

But that's not true against inaccurate quarterbacks, and the AFL had a lot of scatter-armed quarterbacks. While an accurate passer can cut a zone to pieces, an inaccurate passer can't. Against a man defense, a bad throw (especially an overthrow) is almost always going to be an incompletion. Against a zone, it's much more likely to result in an interception. And it should go without saying that an inaccurate passer is also going to have a lower completion percentge, regardless of the defense.

Makes sense. I've never read anything that disputes the myth of the wide open, high flying AFL passing game. I'll have to check out the Cold Hard Football Facts article.

ronfitch, on 01 Apr 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:
Cold Hard Football Facts ran numbers a few years ago and their (or his?) conclusion was that - based on many metrics - that the AFL's passing game was well behind that of the NFL and the AFL teams did not really pass much more than the NFL teams in comparing leagues year-to-year:

http://www.coldhardf...-is-wrong/6911/

In the article, they say that they based their analysis on data from ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia.

As I said, it appears, at a quick glance, that AFL teams threw the ball approximately 4-5 times more per game than NFL teams during the 10 year period.

Edit: Just read the article. It's a subject that I've been meaning to look into for many years but never really delved into until last night. The article would have saved me some time and effort.

Jack Kemp is the one guy in particular that I've always wondered about in assessing the quality of QBing in the AFL. I never saw him play but his statistics are almost embarrassingly poor. There must have been more to him, though, as he led five teams to the AFL Championship Game. I know he had a strong throwing arm but he must also have been a terrific leader.

Lenny Dawson is the only AFL QB who consistently put up NFL caliber passing stats.

#44 coach tj troup - PFRA Member
Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:22 AM
...though he had a short career in the afl, and nine games is not a complete season tobin rote completed 114 of 181 for 1,846 yards, with 14 touchdowns, and 11 ints. he is the only qb to earn both a pro bowl berth, and play in the afl all-star game.

#45 JohnH19 - Forum Visitors
Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:12 AM
Rote also should have been named to the Big Four all star team for the Toronto Argonauts in 1960 but Sam Etcheverry somehow got the nod. Sam the Rifle had a very good season but Rote threw for 4,247 yards and set a record with 38 TD passes.

Page 3 of 3