MVP debate: Who's most deserving? A.Rodgers - JJ Watt - T.Brady - P.Manning - D.Murray?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Like Watt, they mostly avoided the best offenses in the NFL. They played Philly only after Butt Fumble was in there.

---

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

He is the MOP.

The bigger question is how on earth did the Cowboys assemble a functional D? They lost some of their better players and looked to be on track for an even more catastrophic year than the previous debacle.

---

I found a couple of articles that might explain the success of the Dallas D:

Can Rod Marinelli Fix the Cowboys Defense?

And

Cowboys' Surprisingly Strong Defense Playing Role in Dallas' Shocking Success

Basically it boils down to a coaching change: installing Rod Marinelli, Lovie Smith's partner in crime in Chicago, as DC:

Quote:

---

It's working because defensive coordinator Rod Marinelli is living up to his billing as the best coach/motivator in the league.


He is likened by the Cowboys defenders to Master Splinter, the rat sensei of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They fear him. They follow him. They want to run through a wall for him.


But most important, they listen to him. It has paid off for a Cowboys defense that's short on proven playmakers but has succeeded because it plays fundamentally sound football and swarms to the ball.


"He’s indispensable," Jones said of Marinelli. "His spirit, the way he expresses himself, what he asks of his defensive players, has impacted the entire team. It sounds corny almost, when you see him talk about, 'I just want some guys, he may not be the biggest, I just want some guys who will run and every day at practice give it to me'. Well, yeah, but don’t we need somebody who is bigger and faster? Well, Marinelli is showing us just give me somebody who will go out there and give me 20 plays when we got them and we’ll take care of business."


Cornerback Brandon Carr said Marinelli acts like a maniac at times in how he addresses the players, but he has brought a level of accountability not seen before in the Cowboys locker room.


It’s not just one person trying to fill the leadership void left by Ware, Hatcher and Lee but all 22 defenders who are active on game day.


"It's 22 men buying in to a system," Carr said. "We have a heck of defensive coordinator that puts in the right position to make plays. And guys just showing max effort.

Accountability is there. It hasn't been in there in the past. It's showing up all across the board, just every phase of the game right now it's showing up."

---

And then there is this quote from Marinelli:

Quote:

---

You want to build a really good foundation of fundamentals—bone-on-bone football—[with] how we tackle, how we force, how we break on the ball. When that's in place, I think progress will be made. Without that, then I think you become a gimmick defense. When that foundation is set, then we can take off. But when you build a house of straw—if you're doing too much [schematically]—you might be winning by scheme, you don't want to do that in my opinion.

---

That last part is kind of scary considering what we got in Dom Capers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

---

Romo has been strong this year.

However, I think his success is more because of the run game. Murray is the MVP of the Cowboys, not Romo. Romo had the same skill position talent in prior years minus Murray, and didn't do anything with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Romo has been strong this year.

However, I think his success is more because of the run game. Murray is the MVP of the Cowboys, not Romo. Romo had the same skill position talent in prior years minus Murray, and didn't do anything with it.

---

I agree, I was joking; I expected that Cowboy D to show better in the rankings. You may have a point about their opposition, because when I watched I was impressed by the effort and result mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

How? Tony Romo. Remember, it is the QB who is most responsible for a teams success, so improved play from the defense must be because of the quarterback.

---

:roll: It might be possessing the ball with a run-heavy offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Football Outsiders has Dallas as the 22nd Defense. Maybe Patler has a point about Romo. :)

---

I like the Packer's offense against this Marinelli defense. If Dallas doesn't run up 250 yards in rushing and 35-40 minutes of possession, the Packers will gut them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mraynrand

I like the Packer's offense against this Marinelli defense. If Dallas doesn't run up 250 yards in rushing and 35-40 minutes of possession, the Packers will gut them.

---

I agree. If you contain their run game and force it into a shootout between Romo and Rodgers, the Packers have an excellent chance at winning. Our run defense will be the main key if we play Dallas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

Before Favre and Sanders, the same award had not gone to two players on different teams either, at least not the "official" award from the Associated Press. There is always a first time.

---

Is there a certain and always the same number of people voting for this award?

My research on this question has turned up empty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Seriously Patler? The Favre bashing is beneath you. You felt the Packers won in spite of Favre during his MVP run? Really? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say. I can see you saying that of the Sherman era Favre...or the late career diva Favre...but not the MVP era Favre.

When Favre was winning his MVPs, he CARRIED the offense. His three year stretch during that MVP run was one of the most dominating periods a QB has ever posted. QBs didn't throw for 30 TDs back then. In 1992, when Favre began his career in Green Bay, the ONLY QB at that time to ever throw more than 40 TDs was Marino. The next closest guys were YA Tittle and George Blanda at 36 TDs. The next QB within the previous 20 years was Fouts at 33. Jim Kelly and Warren Moon had just barely eclipsed the 30 mark in the previous few years. If you did eclipse 30 TD passes, it was usually because you had some significant All-Pro caliber talent at receiver to work with. Marino had Duper and Clayton. Kelly had Andre Reed. Moon had Givins, Hill, and Jeffires.

In 1995 and 1996...with skill position talent that was modest at best, and at times just plain crap because of injury...Favre tossed 38 and 39 TD passes. He accomplished this without the talented receivers Marino had...or Fouts had...or Kelly had. Hell, in the Super Bowl year, Brooks went down to injury...Freeman busted up his arm...Favre was throwing by the end of the year to a washed up Don Beebe and washed up Andre Rison. The most receptions any individual player had in 1996 was 56. And Favre threw 39 TD passes to whoever the Packers lined up out there.

And you claim that is winning IN SPITE OF FAVRE, Patler?

To say the Packer won in spite of Favre during his MVP years is an incorrect comment in the least...and more likely just a flat out dumb lash out to demean Favre.

---

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect I must have spit on the image of your boyhood hero, Favre of the mid- 90s?? Otherwise, why would you be so defensive of him, and jump all over a statement that was in no way shape or form Favre bashing.

You jumped all over a single phrase of my post, in essence half of what I wrote, which did not capture the point I was making. What I really wrote was this:

Quote:

---

MVP has always driven me a bit batty. When Favre was winning his, I often felt the Packers won in spite of Favre almost as often as they won because of Favre. Heck, in the same game they would win because of Favre in spite of Favre. Is that what an MVP should be? I sure don't know.

---

If you watched Favre with any sense of objectivity during that time, I believe my statement captures the essence of what made him great. In the 48 games of his three MVP seasons, he threw 42 interceptions, and many were real head-scratchers, as was always the case with him. There was bad with his good, even in his MVP years. He was great those years because he could overcome his own screw-ups and still win games. You probably do not want to hear this, but truth be told, he was fortunate to play with a defense that didn't give up a lot of points, otherwise, at times his screw-ups may have been more costly.

There were times Favre had to be the hero just to avoid being the goat, and in those three seasons he usually was able to do it.

Yes, they won because of Favre and in spite of Favre, often in the same game they won because of Favre in spite of Favre.

Is that what an MVP is? I don't know, because I don't know what criteria should define an MVP in a team sport made up of so many specialists, a team sport in which entirely different groups of players are responsible for offense, defense and "special circumstances".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

I don't know how old you are, but I suspect I must have spit on the image of your boyhood hero, Favre of the mid- 90s?? Otherwise, why would you be so defensive of him, and jump all over a statement that was in no way shape or form Favre bashing.

---

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

If you watched Favre with any sense of objectivity during that time, I believe my statement captures the essence of what made him great. In the 48 games of his three MVP seasons, he threw 42 interceptions, and many were real head-scratchers, as was always the case with him. There was bad with his good, even in his MVP years.

---

There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

He was great those years because he could overcome his own screw-ups and still win games.

---

No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

You probably do not want to hear this, but truth be told, he was fortunate to play with a defense that didn't give up a lot of points, otherwise, at times his screw-ups may have been more costly.

---

Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

It looks like Patler got King Friday'd :lol:

I thought he was having a case of the Mondays!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?



There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.



No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.



Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

---

The Starr stuff is bullshit.

Bart had a super year in '66 and passed the Pack to the championship.

In '67, he played with big time injuries that were withheld from the press.

He played most of the year with broken ribs.

The old time Packers highly respected Bart for his gutty '67 performance.

Sometimes statistics are just a bunch of numbers, this instance is one of 'em.

& Patler is still Patler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KYPack

The Starr stuff is bullshit.

Bart had a super year in '66 and passed the Pack to the championship.

In '67, he played with big time injuries that were withheld from the press.

He played most of the year with broken ribs.

The old time Packers highly respected Bart for his gutty '67 performance.

Sometimes statistics are just a bunch of numbers, this instance is one of 'em.

& Patler is still Patler.

---

I'm not saying Starr was horrible in 1967. He and the rest of the team had a rough season in terms of injury. Starr was probably the reason that team excelled in the postseason. His leadership pulled together the group for a final run.

You can't really pull the "injury" trump card against Favre, can you? Yeah, Favre was eating painkillers like they were gumdrops...but Favre was often playing at less than 100% too. He didn't have a HOF line in front of him and he absorbed a ton of abuse.

My point is that any QB usually suffers greatly when talent around him starts to diminish. Maybe you can attribute all of Starr's 1967 troubles to injury...but I would think at least a reasonable chunk was the loss of offensive talent around him, either due to age or injury.

Favre actually IMPROVED during his MVP years...after the loss of Sharpe...without any meaningful replacement...and then even when receivers starting dropping like flies around him in the title year. That is why he was the NFL MVP those years...and I can't really understand the notion that it is confounding as to why....that the Packers won often IN SPITE of Favre. Makes no sense to me.

Like I pointed out...the guy threw the 3rd most TD passes EVER to that point on a team where no single receiver or back caught more than 59 passes. That is crazy to even think about. He was spreading the ball out more effectively than any QB in history ever had to that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?



There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.



No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.



Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

---

Holy Crap !

5-6 years ago this stuff would light Packerrats up like a barn full of dry hay.

I'm so glad those days aren't so severe on us all. :???:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Claiming that a player who was winning the NFL MVP was really someone who the team was winning in spite of IS spitting on him. You can't cut it any other way. Favre took chances. He was a gunslinger. You have to take the good with the bad and accept it. Favre throws an INT...so what? It isn't IN SPITE of anything. That is who he is. He's also probably going to throw for 3 TDs too. That is also who he is.

---

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Like I said...you can far more easily speak to his gaffes that during the Sherman years (when Favre actually had some offensive skill position talent around him) or his late diva years. However, there is no excuse for it during the MVP years, because Favre carried the offense.

---

I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

You don't bother to actually address any of the points I brought up regarding his surrounding talent. That clearly is part of it. Why is it only about Favre...and not about the talent around him?

---

Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

There is ALWAYS good and bad with any QB, Patler. That doesn't really define anything.

---

Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

No, he was great because he overcame the deficiency in talent around him to post historically ridiculous numbers...which was what I addressed and you completely ignored. The Packers HAD to take chances those years because they didn't have any other talent to rely on. The Packers were fortunate to have the greatest gunslinger of all-time under center.

---

Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

Any QB is fortunate to have that advantage. Bart Starr was fortunate to have the same thing several times, especially later in Lombardi's run. When the HOFers started to wane, such as 1967, the Packers CLEARLY won in spite of Starr often during the regular season.

That's MY point. The HALLOWED Bart Starr...who anyone would claim is BETTER than Favre...had a chance to actually play on an offense similar to Favre's MVP seasons in 1967. On a offense decimated by injury (just like Favre's in 1996)What did Starr post that year?

9 TDs. 17 INTs. Under 55% comp %.

---

You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Friday

It isn't easy to be a QB in the NFL without strong talent around you. It normally cripples even HOF caliber QBs. The fact that Favre was able to not only survive...but thrive...is what made him the clear MVP in those years. He was the Packer offense, so of course the team rode his highs and lows. There was NO ONE ELSE to ride.

If that isn't the definition of an MVP, I don't know what is.

---

I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esoxx

It looks like Patler got King Friday'd :lol:

---

bout time somebody landed a clean punch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.



I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.



Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.





Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre





Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.





You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.



I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.

---

TLDR;

hit him again, King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

Is a player who wins the MVP beyond reproach?
Why do you continue to focus on a single statement that is actually contrary to the overall intent of what I wrote?

You admit that you had to take the "good with the bad" with Favre. Well, the good was winning because of Favre and the bad was winning in spite of Favre. We really are not saying anything different. Yes, in many games the Packers won in spite of the bad Favre and an important factor in those wins was the good that Favre could do. As I said, they won because of Favre (the good) in spite of Favre (the bad). You really don't have to take offense just because I phrased the "good and bad" more graphically; winning because of Favre in spite of Favre.



I don't agree with that at all. Robert Brooks was a good receiver. Antonio Freeman was a good receiver. Mark Chmura and Keith Jackson were very good receiving tight ends, and gave them the combination at TE many fans yearn for today. Dorsey Levens and Edgar Bennett were perfect fits for what Holmgren wanted. Both were very good receiving backs, and capable runners. Henderson was Kuhn x2, a much better blocker, a better receiver and probably just as good when he carried the ball.



Actually I did. I pointed out that he was fortunate to play with pretty good defenses, that did not give up a lot of points, thereby covering up for the "bad" that you got from Favre. The offense I address above, and I think he had a very solid supporting cast.





Agreed, they won because of Favre...........in spite of Favre





Wow. No respect for Brooks, Freeman, Jackson, Chmura, Bennett, Levens? If you fail to recognize the abilities in that group, we can not discuss this.





You are so far off base in that one its amazing, and again are seeing only half the issue. Then and now, the players on that team have said they had no business winning it all that year, and the only reason they did was because of Bart Starr. He was beaten to crap that year, and just kept coming back. Many said he drove that team to the championship by shear will. It was that year that cemented his greatness as much as any other. The final drive in the Ice Bowl was all Starr, he would not let them lose. Starr won the Super Bowl MVP that year, and many suggested that it was for what he did to get the team there as much as it was for what he did in the game. Starr earned tremendous national respect that season.

It wasn't his best year statistically, and in that respect they may have won in spite of Starr, but they did so absolutely because of Starr.



I am just amazed that you do not see the talent the Packers had in those years.

---

I heard the only way Starr could get ready for those games in '67 was by doing many, many lines of blow. Then he'd shoot up some heroin afterward just to relieve the pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fritz

I heard the only way Starr could get ready for those games in '67 was by doing many, many lines of blow. Then he'd shoot up some heroin afterward just to relieve the pain.

---

That's what I do to make it through a Packer loss on this board