Thread: Fran Tarkenton -- "Elway Knows Football"

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think you are completely off base in re: Starr, who was simply the best QB of the mid 60's. Look at his stats from '62 - 66. They are comparable with modern QB's, apart from his much higher YPA, this in an era where DB's could mug WR's.

Interesting side note to that. When Lombardi took over the Packers in '59 he thought so little of then three year veteran Starr that he traded for a stiff named Lamar McHan from the Chicago Cardinals and handed him the starting job on arrival. McHan was a former 1st round pick, while Starr was a 17th round pick back when there were a crap ton of draft picks each year. So much for that being a perfect predictor.

McHan sucked, just like he always did, and Starr got the job, which he then never relinquished. Proof that even Lombardi could be prone to catastrophically bad personnel decisions. He got lucky that time. Without Bart Starr Lombardi wins nothing IMO. Without Lombardi's coaching Starr remains the guy who couldn't beat out Babe Parilli

Starr did a nice job in that five year window you mentioned, but he had below 60% completion in three of those years despite never having more than 285 attempts in a season. He was a solid QB, but I compare him to Tom Brady in that he benefitted from playing for the right team and in the right system.

John tends to be decisive. I actually thought he would fire Fox after the Super Bowl debacle. He probably wishes he had, now.

Heck, I think that Fox should have been fired the year before after the Raven game. Here's why: When he was hired four years ago, the expectations weren't nearly as high. He was the right man to change around a locker room that got poisonous under McFail.

However, the next year, the expectations went way up with 18 coming to town. Fox wasn't the guy to meet them. It's too bad that John didn't realize that then.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Starr did a nice job in that five year window you mentioned, but he had below 60% completion in three of those years despite never having more than 285 attempts in a season. He was a solid QB, but I compare him to Tom Brady in that he benefitted from playing for the right team and in the right system.

It was a Different passing game back then. A good QB would be in the 50% range, not 60%, but with a yards per catch much higher than today. YPA was actually about the same back then. They threw deep a lot in the 50's and 60's, in large part because there was no illegal contact rule, which made short timing routes much harder to use. Interception rate anywhere under 6% was pretty good; Starr's numbers by comparison are almost absurdly good.

A lot of folks assumes the 50's and 60's were all about 3 yards and a cloud o' dust football, but not really. That was more the 70's. Passing was much more prominent in the 60's than it was in the 70's.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Heck, I think that Fox should have been fired the year before after the Raven game. Here's why: When he was hired four years ago, the expectations weren't nearly as high. He was the right man to change around a locker room that got poisonous under McFail.

However, the next year, the expectations went way up with 18 coming to town. Fox wasn't the guy to meet them. It's too bad that John didn't realize that then.

I don't mind giving somebody a chance for an object lesson when all the pieces are right there. Otherwise we should have fired Shanny when he lost to the Jags, right?

Shanahan learned from that, the team kept that fire in their belly all year, and they came out with a tanker-sized chip on their shoulders. This team looked to be doing that as well... right up until the Super Bowl, which Fox treated like a Club Med vacation.

I was surprised Fox came back after that, but maybe he was just a slower learner than Shanny.

Turns out he didn't want to learn the lesson, and instructed his team to ignore it as well. Let's see what the future brings us instead.

Originally Posted by OB

It also makes you wonder why he kept Fox after the SB loss if that's how he feels about him

It did take Elway about 4 months after the SB loss to give Fox a new contract. He may have thought about it, and came to the conclusion that it would not look right to fire a coach who had taken the team to the SB.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think you are completely off base in re: Starr, who was simply the best QB of the mid 60's. Look at his stats from '62 - 66. They are comparable with modern QB's, apart from his much higher YPA, this in an era where DB's could mug WR's.

Interesting side note to that. When Lombardi took over the Packers in '59 he thought so little of then three year veteran Starr that he traded for a stiff named Lamar McHan from the Chicago Cardinals and handed him the starting job on arrival. McHan was a former 1st round pick, while Starr was a 17th round pick back when there were a crap ton of draft picks each year. So much for that being a perfect predictor.

McHan sucked, just like he always did, and Starr got the job, which he then never relinquished. Proof that even Lombardi could be prone to catastrophically bad personnel decisions. He got lucky that time. Without Bart Starr Lombardi wins nothing IMO. Without Lombardi's coaching Starr remains the guy who couldn't beat out Babe Parilli

Unitas was the best QB of the '60s, by a lot: That's why he made 10 Pro Bowls to Starrs 5 (when coaches alone picked the teams) and the AP named him an All Pro 5 times to Starrs ONCE. His Int% may have been a bit higher lower and Comp% a bit lower than Starrs, but his YPA was about the same and his TD% nearly a full point higher. He just didn't have the benefit of playing with literally a DOZEN HoFers including the coach whose name's on the SB trophy.

The '60s were only pass happy in and because of the upstart AFL which learned it was faster, easier, cheaper and more marketable to find one gunslinger and a pair of track star receivers than to find a half dozen linemen big, durable and smart enough to run Packer Sweeps over the whole league plus 2-3 RBs fast, smart and durable enough to find wherever daylight happened to be on each play. That also a lot of why NFL teams won 25 of the first 31 SBs (sure, an NFL team HAD to win SB V and all of Pitts, but that just means no AFL team could even win its OWN conference to REACH a SB.)

Starr was very much a product of that NFL era; Favre was much closer to Arnie Herbers style (both good and bad) than Starr was. Put Starr, Griese or Simms on ANY other team and make them win games with their arm, vision and accuracy rather than by just not giving away the ball while the REST of the team won, and a lot of better passers would beat them out of the starting job. When Dallas was at the goal line needing a TD to tie a game that decided which NFL went to the first SB, Dandy Don threw an Int; in the same spot a year later but needing only a FG to tie, Starr RAN.

That speaks volumes of what GBs offense required of him: High Comp% and low Int%, even at the expense of yards and TDs. Ironically, his best statistical year was the first WITHOUT Lombardi, when he completed a career-best 63.7% of passes, with TDs on a career-best 8.8% (!) and a 104.3 PR second only to his first SB season—but the PACKERS weren't even .500, and Starr quickly went from above average the next season to pitiful his last two.

Starr got into the Hall because everyone but the waterboy got into the Hall on Lombardis Packers teams, but give them Unitas, Jurgensen, or Meredith or Tittle—or even Morrall, Namath or Gabriel—and they and Curly Lambeaus team still have the only threepeats in NFL history, and the Lombari Trophy's still just that. Unitas and Tittle were League MVP multiple times, Starr only once, and there's a reason. Send him to Baltimore and John Mackey and Raymond Berry might not make it Canton.

Originally Posted by G_Money

I don't mind giving somebody a chance for an object lesson when all the pieces are right there. Otherwise we should have fired Shanny when he lost to the Jags, right?

Shanahan learned from that, the team kept that fire in their belly all year, and they came out with a tanker-sized chip on their shoulders. This team looked to be doing that as well... right up until the Super Bowl, which Fox treated like a Club Med vacation.

I was surprised Fox came back after that, but maybe he was just a slower learner than Shanny.

Turns out he didn't want to learn the lesson, and instructed his team to ignore it as well. Let's see what the future brings us instead.

No, way. Mike was brought in to get Elway over the hump, and it was a matter of time. Fox, on the other hand, inherited a worse team, and was brought in mainly to change the culture, not to get an aging QB to a SB win.

Starr was very much a product of that NFL era; Favre was much closer to Arnie Herbers style (both good and bad) than Starr was. Put Starr, Griese or Simms on ANY other team and make them win games with their arm, vision and accuracy rather than by just not giving away the ball while the REST of the team won, and a lot of better passers would beat them out of the starting job. When Dallas was at the goal line needing a TD to tie a game that decided which NFL went to the first SB, Dandy Don threw an Int; in the same spot a year later but needing only a FG to tie, Starr RAN.

That speaks volumes of what GBs offense required of him: High Comp% and low Int%, even at the expense of yards and TDs. Ironically, his best statistical year was the first WITHOUT Lombardi, when he completed a career-best 63.7% of passes, with TDs on a career-best 8.8% (!) and a 104.3 PR second only to his first SB season—but the PACKERS weren't even .500, and Starr quickly went from above average the next season to pitiful his last two.

Starr got into the Hall because everyone but the waterboy got into the Hall on Lombardis Packers teams, but give them Unitas, Jurgensen, or Meredith or Tittle—or even Morrall, Namath or Gabriel—and they and Curly Lambeaus team still have the only threepeats in NFL history, and the Lombari Trophy's still just that. Unitas and Tittle were League MVP multiple times, Starr only once, and there's a reason. Send him to Baltimore and John Mackey and Raymond Berry might not make it Canton.

Great points, especially about the Pro Bowls. It was easier to make the Pro Bowl in the 60's because the two NFL conferences only had 6 teams in them (until the expansions, then they had 8). It wasn't like the 70's, when there was 13, and then 14 teams per conference.

Speaking of the Pro Bowl, that conference setup rang true in the AFL as well, and that helped a young Bob Griese get into Pro Bowls in 1967 and 68 despite posting putrid numbers. He also didn't deserve to go to the Pro Bowl over Ken Anderson in 1973.

Originally Posted by 7DnBrnc53

Fox, on the other hand, inherited a worse team, and was brought in mainly to change the culture, not to get an aging QB to a SB win.

Yes and no.

Fox was definitely brought in to stabilize and get the team back to winning games. But also once Manning was signed he was expected to take the team and make a run for a championship as Elway's mantra since coming back to Denver was a win now attitude. The other thing is realistically despite how bad McDaniels was he also was brought in to bring a championship back to Denver, that much was laid out when Bowlen spoke in the press conference when Shanahan was finally let go. The only difference is of course the experience and how each coach has gone about making that championship team.

Originally Posted by Joel

Unitas was the best QB of the '60s, by a lot: That's why he made 10 Pro Bowls to Starrs 5 (when coaches alone picked the teams) and the AP named him an All Pro 5 times to Starrs ONCE. His Int% may have been a bit higher lower and Comp% a bit lower than Starrs, but his YPA was about the same and his TD% nearly a full point higher. He just didn't have the benefit of playing with literally a DOZEN HoFers including the coach whose name's on the SB trophy.

The '60s were only pass happy in and because of the upstart AFL which learned it was faster, easier, cheaper and more marketable to find one gunslinger and a pair of track star receivers than to find a half dozen linemen big, durable and smart enough to run Packer Sweeps over the whole league plus 2-3 RBs fast, smart and durable enough to find wherever daylight happened to be on each play. That also a lot of why NFL teams won 25 of the first 31 SBs (sure, an NFL team HAD to win SB V and all of Pitts, but that just means no AFL team could even win its OWN conference to REACH a SB.)

Starr was very much a product of that NFL era; Favre was much closer to Arnie Herbers style (both good and bad) than Starr was. Put Starr, Griese or Simms on ANY other team and make them win games with their arm, vision and accuracy rather than by just not giving away the ball while the REST of the team won, and a lot of better passers would beat them out of the starting job. When Dallas was at the goal line needing a TD to tie a game that decided which NFL went to the first SB, Dandy Don threw an Int; in the same spot a year later but needing only a FG to tie, Starr RAN.

That speaks volumes of what GBs offense required of him: High Comp% and low Int%, even at the expense of yards and TDs. Ironically, his best statistical year was the first WITHOUT Lombardi, when he completed a career-best 63.7% of passes, with TDs on a career-best 8.8% (!) and a 104.3 PR second only to his first SB season—but the PACKERS weren't even .500, and Starr quickly went from above average the next season to pitiful his last two.

Starr got into the Hall because everyone but the waterboy got into the Hall on Lombardis Packers teams, but give them Unitas, Jurgensen, or Meredith or Tittle—or even Morrall, Namath or Gabriel—and they and Curly Lambeaus team still have the only threepeats in NFL history, and the Lombari Trophy's still just that. Unitas and Tittle were League MVP multiple times, Starr only once, and there's a reason. Send him to Baltimore and John Mackey and Raymond Berry might not make it Canton.

Starr's best year, by a long shot, was '66. After 64 the Packers didn't have a dominating run game any more, and by '66 it was pretty feeble, with the 2nd worst YPC in the NFL. Hornung and Taylor were getting on in years, and starting in '65 looked pretty washed up. Starr and the D carried that team, Starr with a comp rate of over 60%, an int rate of 1.2% (only 3 all year) and 8.9 YPA. I was not counting the AFL, either, as its a different animal in the 60's - terrible passing, and plenty of it.

As for the misconception that the NFL was solely a running league that is a modern misconception and AFL romanticization. Going back to 1966 league wide there were 6509 running attempts and 6108 passes, plus 591 sacks. Almost 50/50. There were 280 passing TD's and 200 rushing...on and on. The 1970's are far different, but the 60's NFL was really much more of a passing league than is thought now.

Originally Posted by Northman

Yes and no.

Fox was definitely brought in to stabilize and get the team back to winning games. But also once Manning was signed he was expected to take the team and make a run for a championship as Elway's mantra since coming back to Denver was a win now attitude. The other thing is realistically despite how bad McDaniels was he also was brought in to bring a championship back to Denver, that much was laid out when Bowlen spoke in the press conference when Shanahan was finally let go. The only difference is of course the experience and how each coach has gone about making that championship team.

That may have been expected out of Fox, but from day 1, he wasn't the guy who would ultimately take this team to where Elway wanted to take it (a Super Bowl title).

Starrs best year was '66, but his '68 season wasn't far behind; his yds/att and TD% shot way up, but his PR was just below the '66 season because his Int% also spiked.

He was AWFUL in the intervening season though, barely completing 50% of passes, getting picked on 8% of them and posting a PR of 64—but the journeymen RBs succeeding Taylor and Hornung combined for >1800 yds and a rushing attack 2nd in total yards and 4th in yds/att, good enough to threepeat as champs after Starr RAN in the Ice Bowls winning score. In fact, Starrs career-best '66 was the ONLY year while he was starting that GBs passing ranked higher than its rushing (though both ranked 10th in '68.) Starr was no bum, but wasn't elite either: He was an above average QB on a HoF team.

"Run to daylight" is not a passing principle, nor is the Lombardi line Zam liked to quote about how the best RUNNING team will win every NFL Championship as long as it's played outside in winter.

In the interest of full disclosure, I freely admit this time I AM going on stats and analysis I read (and what my Landry-loving dad told me) rather than what I saw live, but that's sort of the point: In the '60s, fan opinions were just that and no more; professional AP sportswriters chose the League MVP and All Pro Team, and Starr only made their cut ONCE against barely a dozen competitors, while the coaches who chose Pro Bowl teams more often than not rejected him. Among those who knew best at the time, he was a second tier player even in the small group comprising NFL QBs.

dread, tell us a story about red grange. . .

Originally Posted by dogfish

dread, tell us a story about red grange. . .

Very funny, *******! Go drink a Coors Light!

Earliest games I personally remember were the damned Packers beating my Mom's beloved Colts in the 60's Our family Hated the Packers with a vengeance. We were Unitas partizans, so admitting that in retrospect that Starr might of been better is painful.

My hate for the Pack pales compared to my hate for Joe Namath, though

Just finished reading a book on 50's NFL and the development of the 4-3 defense though, going team by team, season by season. I am (you mighta guessed) an NFL history geek. My wife bought it for me for Christmas. She is a fine wife

Dread, how do you feel about Paul Brown?

I think Elways proven he knows what he's doing. Let the man do his thang people!

Originally Posted by King87

Dread, how do you feel about Paul Brown?

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Not immune to errors, though, and a bit of a control freak. At one point he actually called Hank Stram recommending very strongly against the Dallas Texans signing Len Dawson, claiming he had no talent. Again, even the greatest coaches and football minds can be prone to personnel mistakes.