Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Many believe a Defensive Back has a greater learning curve in the NFL than a quarterback.  Paul Krause disproved this in 1964,  his rookie  year with the Washington Redskins.  Krause led the league with 12 interceptions and returned them for 150 yards and a touchdown.  The Redskins traded him to the Minnesota Vikings for Pat Richter just before the 1968 season.  This was a very bad move.  Krause's arrival in Minnesota coincided with the Vikings rise as a dominant team in the NFL.  Paul Krause was on the team that went to four Super Bowls.  When he retired after 1979 with 16 seasons,  Krause had the NFL record for interceptions with 81.  He returned them 1,185 yards for three touchdowns.  He also recovered 19 fumbles for 163 yards and three touchdowns.

Paul Krause had speed, great hands, and always seemed to be around the ball.  He never shied away from physical contact.  The Minnesota Vikings also utilized his great hands for holding the ball for field goals and extra points.  Paul Krause was  a three time All Pro and went to eight Pro Bowls.

Nevertheless, Paul Krause  had one flaw which delayed his entrance into the Hall of Fame for 19 years after his retirement.  Similar to Asante Samuel,  he was not a great tackler.  If an opposition runner got passed the front four or after a pass catch, they often could go a long way.

I agree Leonard, Krause had a small reason to wait for the HOF but his eyes were on throws, not tackling, even though he had to ... His role with the Vikes was perfect because of Alan Page, who could force a hurry better than Aaron Donald--no offense John Turney--tall and waiting for errant, hurried or soft throws ...

Brian wolf wrote:Alan Page, who could force a hurry better than Aaron Donald--no offense John Turney--tall and waiting for errant, hurried or soft throws ...

LOL, I take no offense. If someone had any of the Rushmore tackles in any different order it's no big deal to me. People can disagree...different opinions - in so many things like this there is no "right" answer.

Some have Joe Greene > Lilly. I have it the other way around. To me, Page's flaws came when he got too light in 1978-81, just could get pushed around in run game...but his pass rush was excellent.

"He never shied away from physical contact"? That's a laugh. Krause was notoriously allergic to it. One of his own coaches, Buddy Ryan, said Krause would play so deep that he would sometimes disappear from game film. As one sportswriter of the era put it, "Krause again led the league last year in showing up at the pile after the tackle."

Krause was traded for Marlin McKeever, not Pat Richter.

Paul Krause, like Carl Eller and Mick Tingelhoff, had his HOF inductions delayed for a ridiculous length of time because of their four losses in the SB. The Vikings pass defense was airtight during Krause’s time there and we’re going to criticize a free safety’s tackling. Please…

Instead of critiquing Paul's apparent (or maybe non-apparent) lack of tackling, why don't we give examples of good, hard tackles/stops that he made in games instead?

Just like Deion Sanders making more tackles throughout his career than you'd think, the same with Paul until proven otherwise. Until I were to actually invest the time in film-studying his career, I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt when it comes to that "flaw" of his game. Same with Deion. Yes, we love and respect defenders being hitters. But, end of day, if a defender can do just enough to make your team a winner - and tackling not being his specialty not being the "reason" for the team not reaching full potential - then what's the issue?

San Fran & Big D's respective '94 & '95 titles happened in spite of 'Prime Time' being no Blount nor Lott. And Vikings' four SB-appearances happened despite Paul not being either of those notorious 'hitters' either.

Deion did record a sack in his career - '91 at home vs the Raiders. Paul had himself a total of twice as many! One-and-a-half in his big 12-INT rookie season; and the remaining half-sack the following year. Do any of you know what games these sacks took place along with a description of the play(s)? Thanks much in-advance for any answers!

And in addition to giving the answer, again, let's talk about those numerous tackles that Paul did make which I'm sure-enough there's plenty-enough to discuss.

In Michael Richman's 2002 Coffin Corner article on Krause, Ed Hughes suggested to Otto Graham that he trade Paul. Sam Huff highly disagreed with the idea and tried talking them out of it, saying, "I make all the tackles, that's what I get paid for." Sam considered Paul the 'Willie Mays'/outfielder of the defense. Krause didn't think much of Hughes or Graham as coaches. Washington's owner was a fan of Paul, but the trade to Minny happened while he was out of town. Still, he should have been a strong enough owner to have prevented that even in that circumstance. In either event, sadly, Paul doesn't play in four SBs had he stayed in DC.

Otto Graham should have been more productive as a HC but just couldnt get results. Some players felt he rubbed them the wrong way, others felt he ignored defense and special teams too much. I still wonder if John Sample thought Graham or Williams the owner made sure he was blackballed out of the NFL and wanted to face and beat the Skins in the SB but despite Sonny's passing ability, Graham couldnt win enough games ... From what I read, some players felt Graham as coach of the College All-Star teams kept them from developing better and keeping them out of training camps which put them at further risk of being cut or drop down their team's depth charts ...

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Instead of critiquing Paul's apparent (or maybe non-apparent) lack of tackling, why don't we give examples of good, hard tackles/stops that he made in games instead?

Just like Deion Sanders making more tackles throughout his career than you'd think, the same with Paul until proven otherwise. Until I were to actually invest the time in film-studying his career, I'll give Paul the benefit of the doubt when it comes to that "flaw" of his game. Same with Deion. Yes, we love and respect defenders being hitters. But, end of day, if a defender can do just enough to make your team a winner - and tackling not being his specialty not being the "reason" for the team not reaching full potential - then what's the issue?


In Michael Richman's 2002 Coffin Corner article on Krause, Ed Hughes suggested to Otto Graham that he trade Paul. Sam Huff highly disagreed with the idea and tried talking them out of it, saying, "I make all the tackles, that's what I get paid for." Sam considered Paul the 'Willie Mays'/outfielder of the defense.

I think the only issue is it is a talking point for people to discuss. Here we talk about HOF worthiness--and all have varying opinions . . . or who was best defense ever or best offense, all subjective stuff based on individual criteria - does a great year for a QB have to include a championship, who are the Mt. Rushmore coaches, wide receivers, etc.

So I think we are all guilty of nitpicking when we make those kinds of judgments, which is what I think you may be referring to. Correct me if I am misreading you.

Just like a great defense may have a flaw--didn't win a Super Bowl, didn't get after the QB much, didn't stop the run . . . didn't pick off a lot of passes--just things that are part of the things we use in ranking and discussing.

When it comes to a back that does not do everything well, or a defensive lineman that does not stop the run, or a DB that does not hit it is kind of the same thing.

Is it a worthy conversation to have? To talk about flaws in Player A's game or the strengths of Player B or why Player C is hall-worthy and maybe Payer D is not?

No matter the answer to the questions a lot of us do it. I know I do.

More and more things I learn, mostly by watching films that are available and talking to people and reading I've learned some of the flaws in this guy's game and that guy's game and
when I watch, a lot of it seems fairly accurate. Maybe I am not as good at evaluating film as some others here . . . I just watch and try and learn - but there are flaws there--going from godlike players like Jim Brown to average Joes.

There was a media packet that was prepared for the media in the late 1990s that was given to the medai that has press clippings on Krause. It was to be used in case he got in the Hall of Fame - things like that were on tables at media centers at SBs. I have Krause's somewhere here, if I find it I will scan some of it,

But, the point is there was a good article explaining the trade and why Krause was glad he went to Vikings, He was a free safety his first two years. In the article and I am paraphrasing Krause sai "Graham wanted me to play more like a strong safety" and then it went on to explain some more about it.

If you look at clips from 1966 and 1966 you can see interesting things and I cannot be sure it happend all the time but thee does seem to be times that Krasue in on the tight end when he is in the slot . . . but it looks like most of the time he's on the right side. What Krause was implying in the article is that they may have gone to a left- right- safety system rather than strong and free which is what the Vikings did and pesumably what Washington did in 1964-1965. I have not look that closely into it since then, it's been 25 years but if memory serves (and after two TIAs my memory is not what it was, that and my pinky's don't type well) I did check it out then and that was the case. I think.

Maybe I will take a look in next few days to see if I got it right.

So, that is one thing, the scheme changed in 1966-67, that is for sure, what it was exactly, I am not sure . . .probably left and right maning if TE was left, Owens was SS, if TE was right Krause the SS, but with a wrinkle that I could not figure out with the TE in slot--it looked differennt but could not get a good look.

Now, as far as the hitter. Whether it is true or not or if it is exaggerated or not two of my best friend are enormous Vikings fans and both say Krause was guilty of what is being charged here. One of them went to Vikings games, stayed at the Marriott across from Stadium, all of it. They were not complimentary, so will leave it there.

Also, a few, some, a handful, not sure how many, expressed that non-hitting sentiment when discussing Krause. Again, right or wrong, true or not there was a subset of voters
that used that (among the BS losses) against him. For him, it was not just one thing. One of them was not nice about it at all but still voted for him because of the INTs.

My opinion is a player can be great and have a flaw or two or three. They can be a poor tackler or someone who shuns hitting but are such a ballhawk that they are sure
HOFers. The same is true of some edge rushers coming up. I think they are good enough at what they were paid to do that the flaws don't matter.

It's not just a knock on them, it is a compliment to those who were complete at their jobs. It's the old (now insensitive) comments some football people would say about
a one-dimensional player not doing somethign is like complaing that Raquel Welch couldn't cook.

For me, as long as things are not mean-spirited and too partison (Philadelphia Bell fan not willing to accpet criticism about Bell player or Portland Storm fan getting
overly upset because his favortie Storm player is getting harshy criticized) then it is a worthy conversation.

But, that's just my view of the point of these things. A thread was started and people replied with honest opinions.

Krause was an end in college. Makes sense with his frame. Seems like most of the DBs were RBs or QBs in college. Bob Jeter played end in the pros but he was a HB in college.

Krause did tackle, he didn't hit. The Vikings' pass defense did its job in the regular season IMO. They had good numbers and got turnovers (INTs.) The Vikings SS (Kassulke, Terry Brown, Jeff Wright) did blitz some. Even when they got beat in the playoffs, it's not like the defense typically got torched through the air. Either the offense was unproductive or they got run on or both.

But typically in that era the front seven was relied on to stop the run, right? I never heard otherwise. I think Johnnie Gray led the Packers in tackles one year, but that was more of an indictment. So I don't know that I see Krause's approach as that much of an issue, he did what was asked and it was effective.