Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

1959

In both 1958 and 1959, the New Giants and the Baltimore Colts won their divisions.  At age eight in 1955, it came as shock to see Baltimore in the West and the Chicago Cardinals in the East but so be it.  Lombardi left New York after 1958 then went to Green Bay.  In 59, Green Bay was 7-5 a 5 1/2 game jump from 1-10-1 with almost no change in players.  This was the Packers first winning season in 12 years.  They did have trouble with the better teams.  Green Bay lost two to Baltimore and in an inter conference match, the Giants beat them 20 to 3.  They were not great but they were not longer among the NFL's worst teams.  Just slightly above .500

1967

In 1967, lots of things were disjointed with the Packers.  In what may be the best coaching feat of all time, they won the Super Bowl.  To this day, I have no idea how VL managed this.  Nevertheless,  he knew he had gotten the most out of his package, pun intended, and retired as head coach.  He gave some screwball story about the burdens of being general manager and coach but this, I knew then, was not really true.  I have never been particularly good a sizing up people.  Here was an exception.   He simply saw the team going downhill.  The Packers were 6-8 in 1968.

1969

Vince Lombardi became the head coach of the Washington Redskins.  The year before the Redskins were 5-9.  Lombardi brought them to 7-5-2, a three game improvement {5-9 to 7-7 is a two game difference.  Chopping off a loss without a win is a 1/2 improvement.  In this case, he eliminated two losses.} Almost an echo.  This was the Redskins first winning season 14 years. They did have trouble with the better teams:

lost two to Dallas (11-2-1)            
lost to Cleveland (10-3-1)
lost to Los Angeles Rams (11-3)
lost to Baltimore  (8-5-1)

The Colts were a puzzle in 1969.  They were the defending NFL Champions but lost the Super Bowl to the Jets.  After losing the first three, they went 8-2-1 thereafter.

Washington was not great but they were not longer among the NFL's worst teams.  Just slightly above .500.  Historians will be debating what might have been had Lombardi not died.  The main problem with him was himself.  He had this idea, which proved correct, that a man could tolerate pain if he tried.  Late in 1969, Vince Lombardi tried to relieve his abdominal cramps with Pepto Bismol.  He had stomach cancer. 

And how do we know that he stepped aside in GB because “he had gotten the most out of his package”? The 1967 team is underrated by many because of their seemingly “mediocre” 9-4-1 record. They were 9-2-1 before the last second loss to the Rams and a meaningless loss to Pittsburgh in the season finale. The offence ranked 9th in scoring and yardage (4th and 8th respectively in 1966, 8th and 12th in 1965) but the defence was 1st in yardage and 3rd in points allowed, barely behind the Rams and Colts.

I agree with the commonly held belief that he was indeed exhausted from the pressure of simply being Coach Vince Lombardi and all that that entailed.

I should also mention that the 1968 team was very similar to the 1965, 1966 and 1967 teams in terms of offensive and defensive league rankings. Lombardi is what was missing from that 6-7-1 team.

My own take is Vince was already pretty much burned out by '66 but knew he was chasing history in '67---no team had ever won 3 straight championships since division play started in 1933. (And no team since.) Whatever happened that season, he was out at the end of it. But he couldn't have been that burned out, since he jumped right back in the fire with the Redskins after just a short hiatus. So that leads me to believe that he also could read the writing on the wall in '67, that GB didn't quite have the horses to dominate as they had been for most of the '60s. The Colts and Rams were ascendent. I don't think GB was even the best team in football in '67, but Vince and his staff knew how to prepare and motivate their veterans for the big games and navigate through the postseason.

It's too bad Lombardi died young. Would've loved to see what he would've done with the Skins beyond that one season.

RichardBak wrote:My own take is Vince was already pretty much burned out by '66 but knew he was chasing history in '67---no team had ever won 3 straight championships since division play started in 1933. (And no team since.) Whatever happened that season, he was out at the end of it. But he couldn't have been that burned out, since he jumped right back in the fire with the Redskins after just a short hiatus. So that leads me to believe that he also could read the writing on the wall in '67, that GB didn't quite have the horses to dominate as they had been for most of the '60s. The Colts and Rams were ascendent. I don't think GB was even the best team in football in '67, but Vince and his staff knew how to prepare and motivate their veterans for the big games and navigate through the postseason.

It's too bad Lombardi died young. Would've loved to see what he would've done with the Skins beyond that one season.

Jurgensen on Lombardi
"I can't tell you how good I felt. I know now I've always wanted to play for a coach like him. I wish it had happened long ago, when I had my career in front of me. I felt—well, I felt I'd been playing under a handicap, a cripple for 12 years. I loved talking football with him. Such knowledge. I've played the game all my life. I'm a student of it, and I can tell right now he's the best."

His Hall of Fame speech - "If I had to pick one highlight it would have to be the year 1969. Out of all the things that happened to me in football, it was the year under Vince Lombardi. I never worked so hard and was in better condition, the first year I played the only year I played without the Back hitting my stomach and was never better prepared nor did I have more fun under that one year."

Sonny9 wrote:

RichardBak wrote:My own take is Vince was already pretty much burned out by '66 but knew he was chasing history in '67---no team had ever won 3 straight championships since division play started in 1933. (And no team since.) Whatever happened that season, he was out at the end of it. But he couldn't have been that burned out, since he jumped right back in the fire with the Redskins after just a short hiatus. So that leads me to believe that he also could read the writing on the wall in '67, that GB didn't quite have the horses to dominate as they had been for most of the '60s. The Colts and Rams were ascendent. I don't think GB was even the best team in football in '67, but Vince and his staff knew how to prepare and motivate their veterans for the big games and navigate through the postseason.

It's too bad Lombardi died young. Would've loved to see what he would've done with the Skins beyond that one season.

Jurgensen on Lombardi
"I can't tell you how good I felt. I know now I've always wanted to play for a coach like him. I wish it had happened long ago, when I had my career in front of me. I felt—well, I felt I'd been playing under a handicap, a cripple for 12 years. I loved talking football with him. Such knowledge. I've played the game all my life. I'm a student of it, and I can tell right now he's the best."

His Hall of Fame speech - "If I had to pick one highlight it would have to be the year 1969. Out of all the things that happened to me in football, it was the year under Vince Lombardi. I never worked so hard and was in better condition, the first year I played the only year I played without the Back hitting my stomach and was never better prepared nor did I have more fun under that one year."

There was some talent left in Green Bay. Grabowski got hurt, and Anderson kind of played like the sister of a supermodel. Good bloodlines but something's off. The Oline rebuild went pretty well. Weak receivers. Some talent on the defense. They should have won the Central in 1968 with better coaching and an actual kicker.

The guys that burn out like Lombardi always wind up walking away again. I think he had 4-5 years tops in Washington. The book, Coach, on that year is interesting. Written before it was known he was dying. It was a different situation, he was coming in with this huge reputation. As has been said here, winning team but they couldn't beat the contenders at all. Jurgensen only had one more year healthy after 1969. The defensive line was a mess. He wasn't going to be able to trade for Henry Jordans and Willie Davises and he complained about it at one time I believe. Said no one would trade with him. Well the AFL had come in and there were twice as many teams. No one had good players just riding the bench any more. George Allen knew that, paid the price and rebuilt that unit. Would Lombardi have done the same? He wasn't the same man as the 1959 Lombardi. Reaching for old Packers like Tom Brown and Dan Grimm, redesigning the uniforms. Seems a little desperate, like he was trying to recapture something. In the end I don't see Lombardi even making the SB and George Allen did a better job with what the Redskins had.

JohnH19 wrote:I should also mention that the 1968 team was very similar to the 1965, 1966 and 1967 teams in terms of offensive and defensive league rankings. Lombardi is what was missing from that 6-7-1 team.

And Don Chandler!

Jay Z wrote: The guys that burn out like Lombardi always wind up walking away again. I think he had 4-5 years tops in Washington. The book, Coach, on that year is interesting. Written before it was known he was dying. It was a different situation, he was coming in with this huge reputation. As has been said here, winning team but they couldn't beat the contenders at all. Jurgensen only had one more year healthy after 1969. The defensive line was a mess. He wasn't going to be able to trade for Henry Jordans and Willie Davises and he complained about it at one time I believe. Said no one would trade with him. Well the AFL had come in and there were twice as many teams. No one had good players just riding the bench any more. George Allen knew that, paid the price and rebuilt that unit. Would Lombardi have done the same? He wasn't the same man as the 1959 Lombardi. Reaching for old Packers like Tom Brown and Dan Grimm, redesigning the uniforms. Seems a little desperate, like he was trying to recapture something. In the end I don't see Lombardi even making the SB and George Allen did a better job with what the Redskins had.

Interesting points. The Redskins drafts from 1966-68 were terrible, the 69 1st round pick had been traded away for Gary Beban, so the cupboard was really bare for Lombardi in Washington. He did draft Larry Brown and Harold McClinton that first year, and he also brought in Charlie Harraway from Cleveland. Not sure how Lombardi would have rebuilt the Redskins. I agree that, in the end, he wouldn't have had the Skins in the Super Bowl by 1972 and Allen had the defense completely overhauled which Lombardi wouldn't have been able to do. One other point is that Lombardi always had Phil Bengston to run his defense in GB. I think the lack of a top-notch DC may have been Lombardi's biggest obstacle in the long run.

What hurt the Packers in 1968 was the health of Bart Starr, who won only four of nine starts. They lost close games to the Rams, Vikings and Bears while tying the Lions, a winning season if at least two of those losses had been victories. The kickers converted 13 of 29 FG attempts. Carroll Dale wasnt a weak receiver, scoring 8 TDs while averaging nearly 20yrds per catch ... Though the defense was very strong, the Packers could get run on ...

Bryan wrote:

JohnH19 wrote:I should also mention that the 1968 team was very similar to the 1965, 1966 and 1967 teams in terms of offensive and defensive league rankings. Lombardi is what was missing from that 6-7-1 team.

And Don Chandler!

Jay Z wrote: The guys that burn out like Lombardi always wind up walking away again. I think he had 4-5 years tops in Washington. The book, Coach, on that year is interesting. Written before it was known he was dying. It was a different situation, he was coming in with this huge reputation. As has been said here, winning team but they couldn't beat the contenders at all. Jurgensen only had one more year healthy after 1969. The defensive line was a mess. He wasn't going to be able to trade for Henry Jordans and Willie Davises and he complained about it at one time I believe. Said no one would trade with him. Well the AFL had come in and there were twice as many teams. No one had good players just riding the bench any more. George Allen knew that, paid the price and rebuilt that unit. Would Lombardi have done the same? He wasn't the same man as the 1959 Lombardi. Reaching for old Packers like Tom Brown and Dan Grimm, redesigning the uniforms. Seems a little desperate, like he was trying to recapture something. In the end I don't see Lombardi even making the SB and George Allen did a better job with what the Redskins had.

Interesting points. The Redskins drafts from 1966-68 were terrible, the 69 1st round pick had been traded away for Gary Beban, so the cupboard was really bare for Lombardi in Washington. He did draft Larry Brown and Harold McClinton that first year, and he also brought in Charlie Harraway from Cleveland. Not sure how Lombardi would have rebuilt the Redskins. I agree that, in the end, he wouldn't have had the Skins in the Super Bowl by 1972 and Allen had the defense completely overhauled which Lombardi wouldn't have been able to do. One other point is that Lombardi always had Phil Bengston to run his defense in GB. I think the lack of a top-notch DC may have been Lombardi's biggest obstacle in the long run.

Like all hypotheticals, only God knows how Lombardi's complete stint in DC turns out, but sadly this no-SB-by-'72 hypo doesn't seem too disagreeable. It almost sounds like Parcells' time in Dallas. '69 Redskins & '03 Cowboys should be treated as the same; just that the latter reaped the benefit of more teams being allowed in the playoffs by then. Each under a new, already-Legendary HC and suddenly a winner unlike the years leading up; but no real progression beyond (at least not W/L-wise). In either event, Super Bowl(s) or not, I still see Vince FWIW posting strictly winning seasons in Washington (still no 500 one either) until he'd exit stage left. Both he and George Allen...100% winning seasons their entire careers as pro HCs, this includes Allen in the USFL as well.

'67 Packers? Yes, I see it as Vince's greatest accomplishment. The first thing that comes to mind for me, though, is a different example. Many, my fellow-Steeler-fans included, mention Franco & Rocky's absence from the 1976 AFC Championship Game (which admittedly I feel Raiders, at least 50% chance, win anyway). But imagine both of them not being present for the entire season and yet Steelers still win their third-straight title anyway! Well, that DID happen! Vince winning his third-straight, and without Taylor NOR Hornung present anymore! No knock at all on who they did have in the backfield, but those were clearly four BIG shoes to fill! As awesome and, at least, borderline-'Rushmore' Chuck Noll was as a HC, there is no debate over who's better between he and Vince. But if there IS possibly a debate, then this bit of artillery just mentioned is the first that should be used in Lombardi's favor.

Had Vince never stepped down from the HC position in Green Bay and stayed on into the '70s in good-enough health with cancer never entering in, more-than-safe-enough to assume Packers win the division again in '68; and at quite a better record than 8-6. But not quite 13-1 either as their first playoff opponent at Memorial Stadium was. Being that this was no 'final playoff game' scenario, I just don't see Shula with that team around him finding a way to lose here - even if it's vs Vince. 1969? Well, they did finish 8-6 in real-time under Bengtson, so why WOULDN'T the Packers again have a winning season under Vince as well as top that very W/L mark? But whether that would have propelled them to 2nd in the division over Detroit (who, in real-time, finished 9-4-1), it wouldn't have been enough to top SB-bound juggernaut, 12-2 Vikings. So no post-season in Titletown for the first time in five years.

The following season, 'Year One' of the merger, a real toughie! They lose the opener at home to division-champ-to-be, Lions, but not at all...40-0! And Bengtson actually did rally them to 4-2 after that, but only to then flatten out at 6-8 in the end. But before you can possibly assume that Vince would have turned a couple of those defeats into wins hence post yet another winning season, just look who they had to play in '70! With exception to the Bears (who were actually scrappy/respectable though) in the penultimate game, in which they lost 35-17 (ain't no twisting that one), every other loss that season was against a winning team. Of the three that were at least close-enough losses - Rams, Colts, rematch at Vikings - which one or ones can you assume would be a win or two with Vince there? Good chance the answer is neither. Just like Bears sweeping Packers anyway in '63 even if Hornung was around. At best, it looks to be his first-ever 500 season!

First losing season if not in 1970 itself? The following year, Devine's first season in real-time, in which Packers finish 4-8-2? In addition to two ties, there were enough close losses to possibly twist around. But by now this hypothetical may become even-more difficult. Who knows what 'ripple-effect' plays out by now had it been Vince around all this time instead, for better or worse? And despite this being St Vince and...Devine that we're talking of, I'm not imagining GB winning ten games and a division title in '72 under Vince with he being present all that time. Whatever it all was - not including anomalies/"stars-lining-up"/luck, etc - that directly, or indirectly, caused that 'one-year-wonder' to take place, Vince being there all that time may have ironically ripple-effected it all away. In either event, if GB does bounce back in the '70s under Vince, it don't look as if it would have happened in '70 & '71, or even '72 itself. Maybe the next year, or two, after that. But by then, how much would he have had left in him?

And the one thing so far left out of this whole thing...would Bengtson still have been his DC for all this?

Back to Vince's year in Washington, I've always thought intriguing - as I have mentioned before - Lombardi in his last year facing off against Noll in his first year (Wk#6: Wash 14, Pit 7). Landry finally beat Lombardi head-to-head in '69; doing so twice. And then 22 seasons later - Noll, in his final year, taking on first-time-HC Belichick twice, splitting the series, with the last of those being the season finale - Noll winning it at Three Rivers (and Noll also facing Jimmy Johnson that Thanksgiving; Hoodie facing Jimmy in the opener).

And thinking of the unis (the helmet in-particular) of that '69 team Vince HC'd...although I didn't mind 'Football Team' as a name along with jersey-numbers on the helmets like the real old days, and though I am actually sort-of starting to warm-up to 'Commanders' and their attire, my FINAL take on the whole 2020 name-change is that they should have went back to those very '69 unis while sensibly renaming themselves what they were named originally...the Braves.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:'67 Packers? Yes, I see it as Vince's greatest accomplishment. The first thing that comes to mind for me, though, is a different example. Many, my fellow-Steeler-fans included, mention Franco & Rocky's absence from the 1976 AFC Championship Game (which admittedly I feel Raiders, at least 50% chance, win anyway). But imagine both of them not being present for the entire season and yet Steelers still win their third-straight title anyway! Well, that DID happen! Vince winning his third-straight, and without Taylor NOR Hornung present anymore! No knock at all on who they did have in the backfield, but those were clearly four BIG shoes to fill! As awesome and, at least, borderline-'Rushmore' Chuck Noll was as a HC, there is no debate over who's better between he and Vince. But if there IS possibly a debate, then this bit of artillery just mentioned is the first that should be used in Lombardi's favor.

I don't see that as a reasonable comparison. Noll had a few days to account for losing two 1000-yard RBs....Lombardi had years to bring on replacements for Taylor and Hornung. The Packers were much better running the ball in 67 than in 65 and 66. If anything, Lombardi probably should have used Grabowski and Anderson much more in 1966 and taken some carries away from Taylor/Hornung. I don't think Lombardi 'mistakenly' let Taylor and Hornung go to the Saints in 1967....he knew he had better RBs waiting in the wings. I don't think Noll would have let Franco and Rocky depart in the 1976 expansion draft, for comparison.

Lombardi was great at developing talent, but so was Noll. Furthermore, Noll had to draft and then develop his core players in a short amount of time. Lombardi inherited some talented players, and then made some great trades for established players. Noll created his team almost entirely from scratch. Lombardi is revered, but I think a 'good, hard look' at the facts would bring about a good debate as to which coach was better.

Had Lombardi lived, Washington would have done well. Unlike Lombardi, George Allen wasn't that good when it came to offense. How many coaches had two Hall of Fame players yet didn't play them much? Jurgensen and Riggins. Why get Riggins and not use him? Pardee and Gibbs put Riggins in the Hall of Fame.

Although Lombardi was smart enough to pick up Mike Bass, why would he need to trade a lot? Bob Long played 7 seasons with 98 career catches. He caught 48 passes with Washington and Lombardi in 1969
Look at the Packers early round draft picks.
Dowler
Moore Jeter
Adderley Kostelnik
-
Robinson Brown Aldridge
-
Anderson
Grabowski Gillingham (granted Grabowski got hurt but was still a good pick talent wise)