How Has the Game Changed Over the Decades?

[Patler]

I thought - as far as the balls went - that a couple of years ago the NFL stopped allowing teams to "work over" the balls that were used in the game. Remember Ryan Longwell and other kickers talking about how hard it was going to be to kick the "new" balls?

Teams still prepare the balls used by their own offense. There was a long article last year about what all went in to preparing the balls the way Favre likes them. They would do a bunch, then he would pick the ones he liked best.

Kicking is done with yet other balls, so-called "K-balls" that are brand new and "untouched". Kickers said they were slippery.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Hmm. Interesting. Any theories about why the 70's teams seemed to do so well running the ball? These days if you get over 100 yards on the ground it's an accomplishment. In the seventies the league average was around 142 yds/game. Wow. And that's with maybe - maybe four or five more carries per game than the sixties, and nearly an equal number of carries in the forties and fifties. Hmm.

I thought - as far as the balls went - that a couple of years ago the NFL stopped allowing teams to "work over" the balls that were used in the game. Remember Ryan Longwell and other kickers talking about how hard it was going to be to kick the "new" balls?

It appears from what you and others have said, that the rules changes are the primary reason passing is so much more efficient these days.

This brings up one of my original questions: I'm a fan of the running game. Am I overemphasizing its importance because I came of age in the seventies?

I wonder what some of you other old timers think of this. I still get uncomfortable when the coach calls for 35 - 40 passes in a game.

I love this topic because I too am a fan of the running game. So is MM. He's been quoted many times saying he wants to run more and is uneasy with 40-plus passes per game.

As for what changed over the years, I think it's the advent of the single running back position with the FB being primarily a blocker. In the old days both the FB and the HB were skill positions. The FB was usually a bigger, more powerful runner. The HB was usually a faster, more elusive, multi-talented running back. Both positions were used as offensive weapons about equally, both the FB and the HB were good receivers as well.

Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were prototypical examples. But in the 70's the Packers had John Brockington and McCarther Lane in the same backfield.

If the Packers did the same thing today, they might have both Ryan Grant and BJ in the backfield 90% of the plays. Rushing attempts would be split between them.

I think by doing this you gain some tactical advantage, but I think coaches nowadays are willing to give that up in order to get more blocking for a single good rusher.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: "How Has the Game Changed Over the Decades?"


I think ticket prices have gone way up.

[MJZiggy]

What a phenomenal thread! Worth compliments and a bump, gentlemen.

[K-town]

In the early '70s, I believe they moved the hash-marks closer together in the NFL. This was supposed to help the running game as the field was more balanced; there wouldn't be such a pronounced short and wide side of the field. Plays to the "short" side would not be automatically hemmed in, the offense would not at a disadvantage, etc. Perhaps our resident historians can confirm this.
Also, moving the has-marks closer together made field goals easier. To prevent a glut of field goals, the NFL in 1973 (?) moved the goal posts 10 yards back.

[Noodle]

Love this topic!

Hash marks got moved closer in '72. In '72 goal posts moved back and missed FGs over 20 yards went back to other team at the previous LoS.

It was a combo of changes in '74 and '77 and '78 that opened it up for the passing game. In '74, offensive holding went from 15 to 10 and refs started restricting more downfield contact with receivers. In '77, they banned the head slap, Deacon Jones's favorite move. And in '78, they implemented the 5-yard rule for contact with receivers and, more importantly, allowed OL to extend their arms and open their hands when pass blocking, effectively legalizing holding within the shoulder pads.

The Dolphins won the SB in '74 with 7 pass attempts, 7! They were the epitome of hard running teams, and they had the FB (Csonka) and HB (Morris/Kick) combo that Maxi mentions. The year before, the 17-0 team won the SB with 11 attempts.

[MJZiggy]

In the early '70s, I believe they moved the hash-marks closer together in the NFL. This was supposed to help the running game as the field was more balanced; there wouldn't be such a pronounced short and wide side of the field. Plays to the "short" side would not be automatically hemmed in, the offense would not at a disadvantage, etc. Perhaps our resident historians can confirm this.
Also, moving the has-marks closer together made field goals easier. To prevent a glut of field goals, the NFL in 1973 (?) moved the goal posts 10 yards back.

I thought they moved 'em to prevent guys running into the goalposts?

[TravisWilliams23]

I remember when the fullback was just as valuable as the halfback in the running game.

Maxi mentions Taylor and Hornung and Noodle mentions Csonka and Kiick/Morris. If you had a good team in the 60's & 70's you had a good running back tandem of fullback and halfback.

The fullback now is kind of a TE & lineman. They've got to be able to pass block & drive block - it's almost like a pulling guard. Now, the fullback mainly blocks and occasionally catches a pass but rarely carries the ball.

Joe Gibbs in the early 80's popularized the spread offense by using a mobile H-back instead of a fullback to create advantageous mismatches.

Larry Csonka retired in 1979 and is the last fullback to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. That's a long time and I don't see any of today's fullbacks getting elected on their blocking skills alone.

Most teams use the I formation to run the ball. Back then the Pro Set or split back set was used to keep the defense guessing who was getting the ball. In the Ice Bowl, the play Bart Starr called his best call in the game was the "give" to Chuck Mercein, the fullback, to get 1st and goal. Now that play isn't a remote possibility.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I love this topic as well.

As Noodle and Travis mention the NFL football pendulum swung pretty far toward the rushing game in the 60's and 70's, so far that teams experimented with QB's that were more noted for their legs than their arms. Bobby Douglas was all the rage for the Bears. Joe Kapp was the Viking QB. And who wants to remember the Packers' experiment drafting Jerry Tagge as the team's savior? (In this sense, Michael Vick was a throwback.) And, if memory serves, college ball was deep into the wishbone offense (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Barry Switzer). In my opinion the game became boring...too much rushing.

However, today the pendulum has swung the other way. The forward pass is in vogue and just about every team runs the West Coast offense which uses the pass as a substitute for the hand-off or lateral. Sixty passes a game is commonplace. In today's game the QB's and receivers are the superstars and you better have good ones if you're planning on making the playoffs. Sure, there are exceptions -- Tomlinson and Adrian Peterson, for example -- but the fate of the Chargers and the Vikings doesn't rest in the legs of these guys. It rests in the arms of Rivers and Tavaras Jackson and in the hands of their receivers. In my opinion, modern defenses are too sophisticated for a single "i" back to beat you. I suspect defense coordinators will even come up with a semi-answer to Peterson this year.

But I digress. Look at the Packers. They have a coach who claims to be an old school rushing guy, but his team is packed with receivers who can run with the ball in the open field. He feeds them short passes and they run like halfbacks. Run after the catch yards is the team's most prized statistic. And he loves to throw four wideouts at defenses. And if he calls three or four runs that go nowhere, he's quick to revert back to the pass.

In the old days coaches used the run to soften up defenses and make them vulnerable to the pass. Nowadays it's the reverse. It's not uncommon to start a game with a dozen passes in a row. Years ago, Starr (and Lombardi) would start a game with a dozen rushes in a row, whether it resulted in a touchdown or in four 3-and-outs. It sometimes wore on the fans' patience, but it was the way the game was played.

Today the fans have no patience for the running game. They want drama and dynamic action, which means the pass. They'll boo three rushes in a row that do not result in a big run or a first down.

Years ago the left end and flanker positions made a living downfield and the running game opened them up. The holes in defenses were downfield because most defenses played man-to-man. Today it's zone in one form or another. So offenses attack the zones where the seams are, up front with slants or short pitches across the middle. Years ago, that short stuff went to the tight ends, who were generally bruisers like Ron Kramer, or to the HB or FB circling out of the backfield. They never thought of "stretching the field" with a TE.

In fact, "stretching the field" is a modern day concept, born out of west coast offenses and zone defenses. Years ago you just pounded the ball, got the DB's and LB's to creep up and cheat and look for the run. Then you went deep over the top of them to your wide receivers.

The game was simpler back then and I think a hell of a lot more interesting.