Thread: Question about our 1977 offensive line

This is one for anyone, but most likely my fellow "old-timers" will be able to answer; just got to wondering why do you think our offensive line could handle Pittsburgh's Steel Curtain front line, then Oakland's in the 1977 playoffs but then struggled so badly 3 weeks later against Dallas? Do you think that Dallas was that much better than Pitt and Oakland, or that we were at home for those two? I know that it's long been over and ancient history but I got to thinking about it and wanted to hear your thoughts-thanks!

Well, I was just in my teens, and didn't really pay attention to the O-Line, but if memory serves, against PIT and OAK, it was pretty much the defense vs. PIT (Jackson had two INT's which resulted in 10 points being scored), plus he returned a fumble for at TD.

Against Oakland, we recovered a fumble deep in OAK's territory, then our RB fumbled with OAK recovering, but the play (bad call) was blown dead. We scored later.

I'm not saying we were "lucky", but certainly something was shining in our direction to get to the Superbowl. Dallas played near mistake-free football during the SB while we had eight turnovers.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Well, I was just in my teens, and didn't really pay attention to the O-Line, but if memory serves, against PIT and OAK, it was pretty much the defense vs. PIT (Jackson had two INT's which resulted in 10 points being scored), plus he returned a fumble for at TD.

Against Oakland, we recovered a fumble deep in OAK's territory, then our RB fumbled with OAK recovering, but the play (bad call) was blown dead. We scored later.

I'm not saying we were "lucky", but certainly something was shining in our direction to get to the Superbowl. Dallas played near mistake-free football during the SB while we had eight turnovers.

No need to say any more.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Well, I was just in my teens, and didn't really pay attention to the O-Line, but if memory serves, against PIT and OAK, it was pretty much the defense vs. PIT (Jackson had two INT's which resulted in 10 points being scored), plus he returned a fumble for at TD.

Against Oakland, we recovered a fumble deep in OAK's territory, then our RB fumbled with OAK recovering, but the play (bad call) was blown dead. We scored later.

I'm not saying we were "lucky", but certainly something was shining in our direction to get to the Superbowl. Dallas played near mistake-free football during the SB while we had eight turnovers.

Yes, all the things that you say are true; but I still wonder how we could keep the Steel Curtain at bay and also Oakland's line which were also very good but couldn't keep Dallas out of our backfield. Perhaps it was because we fell behind early, or was that "flex" defense one that we didn't match up with very well.

IMO it was the "flex" or the scheme JMO

I've been wanting to get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/77-Denver-Bron.../dp/1589792130

but just haven't had time. Might provide some insight and I hear it's a great read.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I've been wanting to get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/77-Denver-Bron.../dp/1589792130

but just haven't had time. Might provide some insight and I hear it's a great read.

Thanks Joe-looks like a great book!

Originally Posted by East Coast Fan

Yes, all the things that you say are true; but I still wonder how we could keep the Steel Curtain at bay and also Oakland's line which were also very good but couldn't keep Dallas out of our backfield. Perhaps it was because we fell behind early, or was that "flex" defense one that we didn't match up with very well.

Well, I was all of two years old at the time, and had I been paying attention to football I'd have been rooting for the Cowboys if only to prevent my father disowning me, but I suspect it was those last two that made the difference. I honestly think those Cowboys teams were better than those Steeler teams, though I'm hardly free of bias (on the other hand, if Dallas manages to win that great '78 Super Bowl both teams are 3-1 in Super Bowls for the decade, and 1-1 against each other.... ) Pitts D was VERY good; in an era of Doomsdays, No Names, Purple People Eaters and whatever the Rams called their D the Steel Curtain was the pick of the litter. It made Bradshaw, and even Harris and Stallworth, look better than they actually were. Dallas had a great TEAM at every position, they were just less consistent; win or lose, it was always a spectacle. That meant Pitt won more titles, but when Dallas brought their A game they were unstoppable. A great team can beat a good team even if the latter plays a "mistake free" or "perfect" game. But if a great team plays a flawless game, they'll always win.

If it helps though, I feel the pain of those who've been Broncos fans much longer than I. Craig Morton; how can I not feel sorry for a guy who lost SB V to the Colts only to lose SB XII to the man who took his job (Morton is still the only QB to start and lose a SB for BOTH Conferences.... ) And a year later... well, the Oilers had a lot of great teams in the late '70s, too, and I'll always be an Oilers fan first, even if the team no longer exists. If you go 12-4 you shouldn't have to get into the playoffs with a wild card (though the '97 Broncos did exactly that for similar reasons... ) and you sure as HELL shouldn't have to end your season with an AFC Championship game on the road against the team that beat you twice to win the Division. It's still the closest we've come to an All TX Super Bowl; a week after Pitt beat Houston for the third time in a year, they beat Dallas for the second time in a decade.

But yeah, I'd say it's because, at their best, Dallas' offense was MUCH better than Pittsburghs, and their D was still pretty darned good, even if it wasn't the Steel Curtain. What must be especially galling to long time Denver fans is that the Cowboys seemed as certain of winning SB XII as the Packers were of winning SB I, but I really think it's less a question of arrogance than poor scouting. After all this is the same Dallas Cowboys who christened the No Name Defense when their coach stated he couldn't remember any of the Miami players names, but they were all very good and he was quite concerned about them (Dallas would, of course, win their first SB against the Dolphins shortly thereafter, while Miami would win the next two, the first capping a perfect season. )

Originally Posted by East Coast Fan

This is one for anyone, but most likely my fellow "old-timers" will be able to answer; just got to wondering why do you think our offensive line could handle Pittsburgh's Steel Curtain front line, then Oakland's in the 1977 playoffs but then struggled so badly 3 weeks later against Dallas? Do you think that Dallas was that much better than Pitt and Oakland, or that we were at home for those two? I know that it's long been over and ancient history but I got to thinking about it and wanted to hear your thoughts-thanks!

This centered on Tom Glassic, the Broncos LG, who was a terribly underrated
lineman, and Andy Maurer, the LT next to him, who was a terribly overrated
lineman. Glassic was so good that he was able to make up for many of
Maurer's deficiencies.

However, Glassic became very ill late in the season . . . with what, I don't
know, maybe the flu. Anyway, he was able to play at a pretty high level
against Pittsburgh and Oakland . . . although not 100% . . . but by the time
the Super Bowl rolled around, he was down from his playing weight of 270
to 225.

Dallas knew something Pittsburgh and Oakland did not know, then: Glassic's
illness. They put Randy White and Too-Tall Jones over Glassic and hammered
him all day. And Maurer was on his own. As a result, Craig Morton played
the game largely on his back.

Still, thanks to Denver's defense, the Broncos put up a pretty good fight for
a while. But the Cowboys were just too much on that day. Had Glassic been
healthy, I believe it would have been a close game.

I believe I got everything right. It was a long time ago, and I am talking off
the top here.

-----

Originally Posted by topscribe

This centered on Tom Glassic, the Broncos LG, who was a terribly underrated
lineman, and Andy Maurer, the LT next to him, who was a terribly overrated
lineman. Glassic was so good that he was able to make up for many of
Maurer's deficiencies.

However, Glassic became very ill late in the season . . . with what, I don't
know, maybe the flu. Anyway, he was able to play at a pretty high level
against Pittsburgh and Oakland . . . although not 100% . . . but by the time
the Super Bowl rolled around, he was down from his playing weight of 270
to 225.

Dallas knew something Pittsburgh and Oakland did not know, then: Glassic's
illness. They put Randy White and Too-Tall Jones over Glassic and hammered
him all day. And Maurer was on his own. As a result, Craig Morton played
the game largely on his back.

Still, thanks to Denver's defense, the Broncos put up a pretty good fight for
a while. But the Cowboys were just too much on that day. Had Glassic been
healthy, I believe it would have been a close game.

I believe I got everything right. It was a long time ago, and I am talking off
the top here.

-----

That would certainly do it, Top. A lot of people don't seem to grasp the importance of a good LT; as the guy guarding the QBs blindside he's a lot more than a RT who lines up on the other side. RT blows his coverage the QB generally knows it; LT blows his coverage the QBs first clue is his impact with the ground. Your analysis of the left side of the '77 Broncos line reminds me a lot of how I felt about the left side of the Broncos line thirty years later: Is Hamilton really that bad a pass blocker, or should Pears have stayed at RT where he belongs...?

The line functions as unit, something many people don't seem to get (see: The Hidden Game of Football, in particular "Opus for the Unsung" ) It really is only as strong as it's weakest link, and if someone made a poor career choice, or is just having an off day, it can get ugly, and the only hope is for the guys playing on either side of him to pick up the slack. In the case of tackles, that means ONE (and ONLY one) guard. If the guard's a HoFer that gives the team a chance against most teams. But the '77 Cowboys were one of the All Time Great Teams, and expecting an ailing LG to help an under qualified LT protect the QBs blind side is unrealistic. Sometimes you have no choice.

Originally Posted by East Coast Fan

This is one for anyone, but most likely my fellow "old-timers" will be able to answer; just got to wondering why do you think our offensive line could handle Pittsburgh's Steel Curtain front line, then Oakland's in the 1977 playoffs but then struggled so badly 3 weeks later against Dallas? Do you think that Dallas was that much better than Pitt and Oakland, or that we were at home for those two? I know that it's long been over and ancient history but I got to thinking about it and wanted to hear your thoughts-thanks!

The playoff games against the Steelers and the Raiders were at home for one thing. We played the Cowboys at neutral site.

Also the game was won by our defense.

It was also the first Superbowl played in a dome...