Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Well worth the time---Part III in a few weeks

Part I: Curly Lambeau's Notre Dame Box, 1921-25
https://www.packers.com/news/part-i-cur ... ox-1921-25

Part II: Curly Lambeau's Notre Dame Box, 1926-32
https://www.packers.com/news/part-ii-cu ... ox-1926-32

The problem with Cliff's approach is that the so-called Notre Dame Box was one of only 3 formations that the team could shift into after originally lining up in the T formation. And there were also plays that were run out of the T formation without any shifting at all.

I find it a bit odd that Cliff uses quotes from my Johnny Blood book about Lambeau's abilities but he doesn't seem to notice what I wrote about the Packers' offense:

Packer backs were expected to be versatile in those years, because the team used the Notre Dame shift that Lambeau had learned in his one season of playing for Rockne. Designed by Jess Harper, Rockne's coach, and refined by Rockne after he replaced Harper in 1918, the shift started with the backs lined up in the T formation behind a balanced line.
Occasionally, a play would be run directly from the T, but usually the backs shifted into any of several forma¬tions. Sometimes they would shift two or even three times before running the play. In the single wing, with its unbalanced line, the strength of the formation was on the side where both guards were positioned. In the Notre Dame shift, the final posi¬tion of the backs determined the strength of the formation.
Rockne called his three basic formations the square, the Z, and the V. The most commonly used was the square, which became better known as the Notre Dame box. It was similar to the single wing except for the balanced line and the fact that the "wingback" was actually a slotback, lined up between the tackle and the end, rather than outside the end. To give the wingback a path down the field, the end on that side was usually split out somewhat—"flexed," in Rockne's terminology.
Another important difference was that, because of the balanced line, the quarterback was stationed much closer to the center, so he could take a direct snap—not a hand to hand snap, as in the modern T, but a short pass of about a yard and a half. In one series of plays, the quarterback could hand off to any of the other backs. Or he could fake a handoff or two and fade back to pass.
And, because the quarterback didn't have to throw on the run, as the single wing tailback usually did, the formation could set up strong to either side without losing the passing threat.
The positions in which the backs lined up could, and often did, change from one play to the next. Since the fullback was usually the power runner, he might line up at quarterback and then shift into the blocking back formation, either to take a snap and plunge directly into the line or to lead one of the deep backs on a running play. The quarterback was usually the best passer on the team, so he might end up as the tailback in a passing situation.
Harper and Rockne designed the system to confuse defenses and to make use of the special skills of the backs. But it also called for a variety of skills. A back might be a passer in one set, a runner in another, a blocker in another, and a pass receiver in another, on four consecutive plays. In the Notre Dame shift, there might be three or four double-threats and two or even three triple threat backs.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Ralph wrote. The reason I didn't include some of it in my posts is that among the dozen or more players from Lambeau's 1930s and '40s teams that I've interviewed, some offered contradictory information. Lambeau in some of his interviews with others (not me) did too. And then there are transcriptions available from players interviewed for the years ago "Grandstand Franchise." Ralph's version, I assume, is at least mostly Johnny Blood's version, and I believe his distant memory of things was better than many of his teammates. That's why I consider your bio a valuable source and used some what you wrote. But my story was long enough and if I had gone into all of the various takes by different players on positioning, etc., it would have made for tortuous reading. Plus, as I'm sure you know, often the more you learn, the more you realize what you'll never know. We also have a Lambeau playbook from the late 1930s and there's more evidence of how much his Box evolved. Same with Blood's statistics. Different researchers have different numbers, as you could probably tell from my stories. I went with Eric Goska's partly because he kept a separate category for unaccounted yardage when there weren't names attached to passes, runs, etc,, in those newspaper play-by-plays. I think others, for example, if Lambeau was throwing all or most of the passes in a game, and it was clear he was still on the field, would then credit Lambeau with the passing yards even if he wasn't identified as the passer on a particular play. Bottom line: I respect the tedious research of all those who have compiled stats from pre-1932 play-by-plays. But what I tried to do, for example, was use only Goska's stats for specific Packers players because I trust him and could ask him more specific questions, and used David Neft's remarkable league-wide research to draw comparisons with players on other teams, only for the sake of consistency.

Whoa, allow me to geek out for a moment and say hello to the one and only Cliff Christl! Sir, thank you for all you do in keeping history alive. As a Bears historian, your work is vital to me. I also love many of the interviews you've given, not just to learn from you but also to see what historic fluency looks like at the highest level. All best!

In response to Ralph, I'd say this. There's no way for any of us to know what different plays or formations that Lambeau might have included at different times and for different games. For example, on Hornung's 13-yard clinching TD against the Browns in the '65 title game, Zeke Bratkowski told me that was a play inserted for that game and they didn't even give it a name because Lombardi knew the Browns would be overplaying some of their key runs: Hornung on the power sweep and some of Taylor's back to the weakside plays. Thus, Hornung runs wide left on that play at the perfect time and some announcers referred to as the "sweep," which it clearly wasn't, as Bratkowski explained. In fact, the last time I was at the Pro Football Hall of Fame, that run was incorrectly included as a highlight on the Lombardi Power Sweep video display. One guard pulled. On Red Right 49, the power sweep – Lombardi's signature play – two guards and the off tackle (almost always the LT) pulled behind the line. Coaches have been adjusting their offenses, inserting new plays, etc., for eternity. This series is about the basic precepts of Lambeau's Notre Dame Box, and how they changed over the years.
One needs to keep in mind that Johnny Blood played during three distinct changes to Lambeau's Box. At least two more are spelled in this very long Part III. So there are things that may have been true about what Johnny Blood said that applied to 1935 or '36, his last two seasons in Green Bay, that weren't true in 1929.
I have no reason to disagree with what Ralph wrote. I researched Rockne's offense throughout 1918 and there wasn't a lot there. So I continued researching through '24, figuring some of it had to be part of what Lambeau learned from him. But then much was made of Rockne's major overhaul to his own system in 1927. And, admittedly, I didn't research that. So I'm not sure what timeframes were being referenced here. As I think most of us know, Mike Holmgren's West Coast offense was different than Bill Walsh's and Holmgren's West Coast offense by his Super Bowl teams had undergone considerable change from the one he introduced to Green Bay in 1992. And how much of Andy Reid's offense today resembles Holmgren's? I'd certainly find it beneficial if what was written specified the years it applied. That's why I felt it was necessary to write at length over four parts about Lambeau's Box.
Lambeau himself mentioned how his offense by the early 1930s hardly resembled what he had learned from Rockne.
For example, some of the early Packers quarterbacks were listed as blocking backs in Total Football because QBs were blocking backs in some, maybe most, Notre Dame systems. But they weren't blocking backs in Lambeau's until 1934. Harry Stuhldreher, one of the Four Horsemen, coached at UW from 1936-48 and in his early years, his blocking back was a halfback. Also, one of the things I discovered interviewing players from the 1930s was that when they said an end split out, they could be referencing a 1-yard split – the split in the Box after the shift – because apparently on most teams the ends lined up tight to the tackles and never shifted. So I misinterpreted some of my 1930s interviews until former Bear and NFL coach Bob Snyder better explained it all to me.
Anyway, Part III was posted Thursday.
https://www.packers.com/news/part-iii-c ... ox-1933-42