19 replies to this topic

[26554]

The franchise by franchise discussion topics threads from last year seem to do well, for the most part. I thought maybe this off-season we could do something similar with individual teams. These can be random and don't have to be SB/league championship teams, or even playoff teams. I thought the '66 Packers would be a decent good starting point. So...

1. All things considered, whereabouts does Bart Starr's 1966 season rank among the great passing seasons in NFL history?

2. Is Willie Wood, the best LS in the league at the time, the most underrated HoF player from those Packers' teams?

3. Is the late-season, Western Division-clinching win over the Colts at Memorial Stadium (highlighted by what SI's Tex Maule dubbed "The 1,000,000 Fumble") one of the signature wins of the Lombardi-era?

4. Should Max McGee have been the MVP of SBI instead of Starr?

5. Which team was stronger/more talented, the '62 or '66 Packers? The '62 team lost only once (on Thanksgiving day to a very good Lions' team at Tiger Stadium), had Jim Taylor at his peak and had Ron Kramer and Jim Ringo. They also had a formidable lb'ing crew in Nitschke, Currie and Forester. The '66 team lost twice (to two teams that didn't finish above .500), subtracts Kramer and Ringo, and has a declining Jim Taylor and basically finished Paul Hornung. However, they also had a formidable lb'ing crew in Nitschke, Robinson and Caffey and had other additions like Dale and Fleming. They had Starr enjoying the best season of his NFL career. Like the '62 team, they had to go the road for the NFL Championship game, but they then had to play in what became the SB against the Chiefs. Tough call. I'd go with the '62 team, but not by much.

6. How much damage would've been done to the legacies of Lombardi and the 60's Packers if they had somehow lost to the Chiefs at the Coliseum that day? Later accounts stated that Lombardi was a nervous wreck prior to the game.

Feel free to add additional questions/topics.

[Bryan]

1. All things considered, whereabouts does Bart Starr's 1966 season rank among the great passing seasons in NFL history?

2. Is Willie Wood, the best LS in the league at the time, the most underrated HoF player from those Packers' teams?

3. Is the late-season, Western Division-clinching win over the Colts at Memorial Stadium (highlighted by what SI's Tex Maule dubbed "The 1,000,000 Fumble") one of the signature wins of the Lombardi-era?

4. Should Max McGee have been the MVP of SBI instead of Starr?

5. Which team was stronger/more talented, the '62 or '66 Packers? The '62 team lost only once (on Thanksgiving day to a very good Lions' team at Tiger Stadium), had Jim Taylor at his peak and had Ron Kramer and Jim Ringo. They also had a formidable lb'ing crew in Nitschke, Currie and Forester. The '66 team lost twice (to two teams that didn't finish above .500), subtracts Kramer and Ringo, and has a declining Jim Taylor and basically finished Paul Hornung. However, they also had a formidable lb'ing crew in Nitschke, Robinson and Caffey and had other additions like Dale and Fleming. They had Starr enjoying the best season of his NFL career. Like the '62 team, they had to go the road for the NFL Championship game, but they then had to play in what became the SB against the Chiefs. Tough call. I'd go with the '62 team, but not by much.

6. How much damage would've been done to the legacies of Lombardi and the 60's Packers if they had somehow lost to the Chiefs at the Coliseum that day? Later accounts stated that Lombardi was a nervous wreck prior to the game.

1. It seems like all "QB Season Rankings" ignore the postseason. I remember one article that compared Bert Jones 1976 season to Ken Stabler's, and not one mention was made of Stabler's postseason. Starr played great against both Dallas and KC in the postseason, so I think that should count for something. That said, Starr was more efficient than spectacular. Maybe we could call it a season "ahead of its time"?

2. I think Herb Adderley is the most underrated. His name rarely comes up in the great CB discussions, yet he was good against the run and the pass, and played at a high level for a long time. When he went to Dallas at the end of his career, he immediately became their best coverage guy and Dallas finally made it to the Super Bowl (twice).

3. I don't think so. The game wasn't that memorable compared to other Packer games of that era, and the Packers usually handled the Colts anyway.

4. No.

5. The 62 Packers were more dominant, IMO. I think they had 36 rushing TDs and gave up like only 4 rushing TDs themselves. Perhaps not as well-rounded as the 66 Packers, but stronger.

6. Probably quite a bit, but I guess thats hypothetical. Its interesting to me how easily the Packers could have fallen short in 1965 to the Colts and 1966 & 1967 to the Cowboys. They could have very easily gone 0-for-3 in league titles those years.

[jackfu]

1. It seems like all "QB Season Rankings" ignore the postseason. I remember one article that compared Bert Jones 1976 season to Ken Stabler's, and not one mention was made of Stabler's postseason. Starr played great against both Dallas and KC in the postseason, so I think that should count for something. That said, Starr was more efficient than spectacular. Maybe we could call it a season "ahead of its time"?

2. I think Herb Adderley is the most underrated. His name rarely comes up in the great CB discussions, yet he was good against the run and the pass, and played at a high level for a long time. When he went to Dallas at the end of his career, he immediately became their best coverage guy and Dallas finally made it to the Super Bowl (twice).

3. I don't think so. The game wasn't that memorable compared to other Packer games of that era, and the Packers usually handled the Colts anyway.

4. No.

5. The 62 Packers were more dominant, IMO. I think they had 36 rushing TDs and gave up like only 4 rushing TDs themselves. Perhaps not as well-rounded as the 66 Packers, but stronger.

6. Probably quite a bit, but I guess thats hypothetical. Its interesting to me how easily the Packers could have fallen short in 1965 to the Colts and 1966 & 1967 to the Cowboys. They could have very easily gone 0-for-3 in league titles those years.

Thanks for an excellent thread 26554! Bryan, I'm in agreement with you. #2 was my toughest choice between Adderley and Wood, they were both a joy to watch! I was a "Packer Backer" in those days. Rarely is it mentioned that (as I recall, anyway - I was 11 then), SBI was still close until Wood's 2nd half int and 50yd return broke it. Or, did the Pack just really turn up the heat in the 2nd half to put it away, much as they did in SBII?
Edit - #4 Agreed, no. McGee had a great game, catching nearly twice as many passes as he had the whole regular season, I believe at 7 recepts and almost averaging 20 yds per catch! Starr was the architect and rightfully was rewarded with MVP.
Thanks again! - jack

[rhickok1109]

1. Certainly it was Starr's best season and I think he deserved the MVP, almost by default, but it's hard for me to rank it as one of the all-time great passing seasons. The Packers' offense wasn't overwhelming that year; the defense really carried the team most of the time.

2. I'd say Henry Jordan, who's hardly ever mentioned by anybody, but Wood is a very close second.

3. I'm a Packer fan, but I don't have a particularly vivid memory of that game. I remember the 1962 home win over the Colts much better, along with the earlier win over the Lions and the terrible loss to Detroit on Thanksgiving Day.

4. Yes, I thought at the time that McGee should have been the MVP and nothing has changed my mind.

5. I don't think there's any real comparison. The 1962 team was much, much better. Those Packers finished first in both scoring offense and scoring defense and outscored their opponents by nearly 20 points a game. The running game was far superior in 1962, and that was always the backbone of Lombardi's offense.

6. It's hard to answer this, because I really don't think there was much chance that they'd lose. Even though it was close at halftime, I wasn't worried about the outcome.

I think Bryan raises a very interesting and important point, BTW. It's often said that the first two Super Bowls only proved that the Packers were much better than any potential AFL opponent, but in fact they weren't that far above their major opponents in the NFL. The Cowboys and Browns (despite a 9-5-0 record) both had better offenses in 1966, and in 1967 the Rams and the Colts may actually have had better teams.

[Citizen]

The Cowboys and Browns (despite a 9-5-0 record) both had better offenses in 1966, and in 1967 the Rams and the Colts may actually have had better teams.

Though they're rightly considered the team of the '60s, it's interesting to ponder by what a sliver-thin margin the Packers really hold that distinction. There's no question they were the class of the league in 1961 and '62, but their last three titles were at least partly the result of grit, guile and dumb luck. As mentioned, they were more an efficient, mistake-proof machine in '66, and they were anything but dominant in the years before and after. If not quite so many things had gone the Pack's way, the decade's 10 NFL championships might have been shared more evenly.

[jackfu]

I think Bryan raises a very interesting and important point, BTW. It's often said that the first two Super Bowls only proved that the Packers were much better than any potential AFL opponent, but in fact they weren't that far above their major opponents in the NFL. The Cowboys and Browns (despite a 9-5-0 record) both had better offenses in 1966, and in 1967 the Rams and the Colts may actually have had better teams.

Interesting point. I seem to recall Jerry Kramer saying something to the effect that in those days the Packers sometimes didn't really play to their full capacity and they did enough to win (no offense intended to anyone). I remember in '67 how a blocked punt turned the game for the Rams late in the season. In the playoffs, however, the Packers humiliated the Rams, so I tend to believe the Packers for that stretch of seasons really were superior to the competition, they just didn't always play to that level of superiority.

[ronfitch]

Rarely is it mentioned that (as I recall, anyway - I was 11 then), SBI was still close until Wood's 2nd half int and 50yd return broke it. Or, did the Pack just really turn up the heat in the 2nd half to put it away, much as they did in SBII?
Thanks again! - jack

Sadly, I missed the Lombardi years and became a fan of the Packers in '71 ... 'cause my timing is simply brilliant.

If you watch the "America's Game" episode about the '66 Packers and Super Bowl I, Willie Davis talks about how cautious they played in the first half of that game and how that took away the "heart of what you do." Bill Curry and Bart Starr also talk about how much pressure was on Lombardi by the NFL owners in the weeks leading up to the game and how tight they were going into it. Davis goes on to say that they had more aggressive play calls in the second half, which he feels opened things up. I have read similar things elsewhere, but can't cite other specific sources.

[jackfu]

Sadly, I missed the Lombardi years and became a fan of the Packers in '71 ... 'cause my timing is simply brilliant.

If you watch the "America's Game" episode about the '66 Packers and Super Bowl I, Willie Davis talks about how cautious they played in the first half of that game and how that took away the "heart of what you do." Bill Curry and Bart Starr also talk about how much pressure was on Lombardi by the NFL owners in the weeks leading up to the game and how tight they were going into it. Davis goes on to say that they had more aggressive play calls in the second half, which he feels opened things up. I have read similar things elsewhere, but can't cite other specific sources.

Thanks! You're right and I'll have to watch it again. They probably did go back to the type of football that got them there to begin with in the second half. I loved Lombardi's post-game quote that (paraphrasing) "That's what you wanted me to say." about the Chiefs not being at the level of most NFL teams.

[JohnH19]

America's Game is a great series. I know it's wishful thinking but wouldn't it be wonderful if NFL Films went back and made episodes for the pre-Super Bowl NFL and AFL champions while some of the players are still alive?

[Bob Gill]

>America's Game is a great series. I know it's wishful thinking but wouldn't it be wonderful if NFL Films went back and made episodes for the pre-Super Bowl NFL and AFL champions while some of the players are still alive?

"Pre-Super Bowl NFL"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Or are you talking about the old barnstorming days?

(Forgive the sarcasm.)

[evan]

America's Game is a great series.

I've been watching the bonus material on each episode from the box set. Some of it is really good. On the 1966 Packers episode, they have a vignette on Elijah Pitts. The footage of Paul Hornung and Lombardi telling Pitts "Don't worry about it ... Elijah! Don't worry about it" after a completely disconsolate Pitts had fumbled late in the GB-Dallas NFL Championship is really moving stuff.

It just shows you how much of a team this was. For a guy like Lombardi, with all of his bombastic bluster, to look at Pitts with complete serenity on his face, to make sure he soothed Pitts after he had made such a huge mistake was something I never would have imagined to have been possible.

[John Turney]

2. Is Willie Wood, the best LS in the league at the time, the most underrated HoF player from those Packers' teams?

Wood was a right safety---free, if you will. I know Pro Football reference shows him at LS for a couple of years, and perhaps that's maybe what was lsited, but from all I've seen, and Coach TJ owuld know for sure, but he was away from TE, even in the years, PFR has him as LS and TOm Brown as RS.

PFR still was Merlin Olsen as a RDT for much of his career, even though he never played there and even though they've been shown that he was never listed there. Pro Football Reference does a good job in many ways, but they can sure get some things wrong and won't take many corrections .. .

[26554]

Wood was a right safety---free, if you will. I know Pro Football reference shows him at LS for a couple of years, and perhaps that's maybe what was lsited, but from all I've seen, and Coach TJ owuld know for sure, but he was away from TE, even in the years, PFR has him as LS and TOm Brown as RS.

PFR still was Merlin Olsen as a RDT for much of his career, even though he never played there and even though they've been shown that he was never listed there. Pro Football Reference does a good job in many ways, but they can sure get some things wrong and won't take many corrections .. .

Of course, you're right. I was going to just type FS, but thought I'd go with the proper terminology of the day and, well, it was kinda late when I was putting the OP together. I've heard about p-f-r not wanting to take corrections. Hopefully, their resistance lessens soon.

1. It seems like all "QB Season Rankings" ignore the postseason. I remember one article that compared Bert Jones 1976 season to Ken Stabler's, and not one mention was made of Stabler's postseason. Starr played great against both Dallas and KC in the postseason, so I think that should count for something. That said, Starr was more efficient than spectacular. Maybe we could call it a season "ahead of its time"?

1. Certainly it was Starr's best season and I think he deserved the MVP, almost by default, but it's hard for me to rank it as one of the all-time great passing seasons. The Packers' offense wasn't overwhelming that year; the defense really carried the team most of the time.

It might be better to ask where Starr's '66 season ranks among the all-time most efficient passing seasons. Looking at roughly the same period, the likes of Unitas and Jurgensen had seasons that were more spectacular. Maybe we could say that Starr was spectacularly efficient that season? I know that some believe that Starr was the best 'game manager' ever and I don't think that should be viewed as an insult. Still, while the Packers' run game certainly wasn't terrible in '66 or '67 it wasn't, as noted above, what it had been in '61 and '62. They became more reliant on Starr's right arm and he definitely proved up to the task.

[Jay Z]

It might be better to ask where Starr's '66 season ranks among the all-time most efficient passing seasons. Looking at roughly the same period, the likes of Unitas and Jurgensen had seasons that were more spectacular. Maybe we could say that Starr was spectacularly efficient that season? I know that some believe that Starr was the best 'game manager' ever and I don't think that should be viewed as an insult. Still, while the Packers' run game certainly wasn't terrible in '66 or '67 it wasn't, as noted above, what it had been in '61 and '62. They became more reliant on Starr's right arm and he definitely proved up to the task.

The Packers had 5 passes intercepted in 1966; next best was 14 by the Cowboys. Chiefs had 15. That's some lead.

Packers had excellent defensive stats in 1966. They were always great at passing yards given up, led the league nearly every year. 1959 this year, Vikings next best at 2235. 7 TDs given up was the best. 28 Int was 2nd to Cleveland. Even sacks, not a Pack specialty, were at 47, and they only gave up 3.7 yards a carry rushing. It's interesting that Dallas had so much success in the NFL Championship game, particularly running the ball and on some passes to Frank Clarke and Dan Reeves.

I don't think the Chiefs had much of a chance in the Super Bowl. The Chiefs couldn't establish the run, and they couldn't play four quarters doing that. The AFL was too dependent on the pass, and that wasn't a good matchup with the Packers. I don't think the 1968 Jets would have fared any better in a matchup with the 1966 or 1967 Packers than the Chiefs or Raiders did. The Packers had Jordan, Aldridge, Caffey, and Jeter on their right side, not the weakness that the Colts had. The 1969 Chiefs would have had a better chance because their defense was more likely to keep them in the game.

[jackfu]

I think you've nailed it! Efficiency. The Packers weren't flashy (the pass on 3rd and 1 seemed to be their main trick play), they were just solid and deadly efficient at each position. I can't remember who said it but I believe it was a fellow coach when asked about scouting the Packers replied "How do you scout blocking and tackling?"

[3243]

Though they're rightly considered the team of the '60s, it's interesting to ponder by what a sliver-thin margin the Packers really hold that distinction. There's no question they were the class of the league in 1961 and '62, but their last three titles were at least partly the result of grit, guile and dumb luck. As mentioned, they were more an efficient, mistake-proof machine in '66, and they were anything but dominant in the years before and after. If not quite so many things had gone the Pack's way, the decade's 10 NFL championships might have been shared more evenly.

Emphasis mine


One could then make the argument that those very qualities of grit and guile of the 1965-especially-67 teams were due to Lombardi, whereas the 1961-62 Packers were able to get by on physical and athletic dominance. So the later Packers moreso established Lombardi's legacy.

[conace21]

Emphasis mine


One could then make the argument that those very qualities of grit and guile of the 1965-especially-67 teams were due to Lombardi, whereas the 1961-62 Packers were able to get by on physical and athletic dominance. So the later Packers moreso established Lombardi's legacy.

About Lombardi's treatment of Pitts, Bill Parcells had a philosophy, get on 'em when they're feeling good after a win, leave them alone when they're down. Several Packers described times when they were absolutely fed up or had lost confidence with Lombardi riding them at a practice. Suddenly, Lombardi would come over, say a few words recognizing the player's effort, or performance, and suddenly said player was on cloud nine.

The 1961 and especially 62 Packers were dominant teams with the superb two headed monster of Jim Taylor and the Golden Boy heading the running game. Starry managed the game and offense, but otherwise was mostly along for the ride. In the Super bowl runs, with the age and injury having depleted the run game, he raised his game to compensate. He still wasn't the type to take unnecessary risks and make mistakes (aside from a horrendous stretch to open 1967.) In 1966, he led the league in three categories, lowest INT %, completion %, and Y/A. Efficiency at it's finest.

To put it in a modern perspective, the 1961-62 Packers were like the 2007 Patriots' regular season. They just dominated teams, even if they did it in a different manner. The 1965-67 Packers were like the three Super Bowl winning Pats. They didn't really have a dominant running game (except for when they got Corey Dillon) but they found ways to win.

If the Chiefs had somehow won.... That would have killed Lombardi's legacy. History may have been kinder once subsequent AFL teams showed their worth. Philadelphia's blowout loss to Cleveland in 1950 could have harmed their title legacy, but the impact was mitigated when the world found out that the Cleveland Browns were really good.
But I also agree that it.was extremely unlikely for KC or anyone to beat Lombardi's Packers. It wasn't a huge talent discrepancy... it was the mental and physical toughness of the Packers. But they should also be givn

[conace21]

Emphasis mine


One could then make the argument that those very qualities of grit and guile of the 1965-especially-67 teams were due to Lombardi, whereas the 1961-62 Packers were able to get by on physical and athletic dominance. So the later Packers moreso established Lombardi's legacy.

About Lombardi's treatment of Pitts, Bill Parcells had a philosophy, get on 'em when they're feeling good after a win, leave them alone when they're down. Several Packers described times when they were absolutely fed up or had lost confidence with Lombardi riding them at a practice. Suddenly, Lombardi would come over, say a few words recognizing the player's effort, or performance, and suddenly said player was on cloud nine.

The 1961 and especially 62 Packers were dominant teams with the superb two headed monster of Jim Taylor and the Golden Boy heading the running game. Starr managed the game and offense, but otherwise was mostly along for the ride. In the Super bowl runs, with the age and injury having depleted the run game, he raised his game to compensate. He still wasn't the type to take unnecessary risks and make mistakes (aside from a horrendous stretch to open 1967.) In 1966, he led the league in three categories, lowest INT %, completion %, and Y/A. Efficiency at it's finest.

To put it in a modern perspective, the 1961-62 Packers were like the 2007 Patriots' regular season. They just dominated teams, even if they did it in a different manner. The 1965-67 Packers were like the three Super Bowl winning Pats. They didn't really have a dominant running game (except for when they got Corey Dillon) but they found ways to win.

If the Chiefs had somehow won.... That would have killed Lombardi's legacy. History may have been kinder once subsequent AFL teams showed their worth. Philadelphia's blowout loss to Cleveland in 1950 could have harmed their title legacy, but the impact was mitigated when the world found out that the Cleveland Browns were really good.
But I also agree that it.was extremely unlikely for KC or anyone to beat Lombardi's Packers. It wasn't a huge talent discrepancy... it was the mental and physical toughness of the Packers. But they should also be given credit for their ability to make adjustments. At halftime, I believe I read that Lombardi ordered more blitzing in the second half, which of course helped lead to Willie Wood's interception and gave the Packers firm control of the game. On the other hand, KC continued to leave their CB's in one on one coverage, and Starr continued to feast on them.

[BD Sullivan]

I think you've nailed it! Efficiency. The Packers weren't flashy (the pass on 3rd and 1 seemed to be their main trick play), they were just solid and deadly efficient at each position. I can't remember who said it but I believe it was a fellow coach when asked about scouting the Packers replied "How do you scout blocking and tackling?"

Similar to the comment laced with frustration that noted how every team knew the power sweep was coming, but still couldn't stop it.

[jackfu]

I recall that many observers commented that both the Chiefs and Raiders players were intimidated by the fact that they were playing the mighty Packers in those first two Super Bowls. I was always skeptical about it, since both teams had players on their rosters who were former NFL guys themselves and knew the Packers.