T.E.D's Packers Report Card: Offense

[Deputy Nutz]

Best thing about that Cold Hard FB Facts list is this: No Elway. I hate when people put Elway on a pedestal. I know he was a good player, and better than his numbers, but other QBs had to deal with shit, too.

Elway was a fantastic athlete, and he was a pretty damn good QB. He went to a shit load of Super Bowls and he was kind of the stand out, nobody else on those 1980s team really brought any attention besides Elway. He was gamer and I put him in my top 10 list of QBs.

[Deputy Nutz]

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Starr threw an average of 10 touchdown passes a season and threw for less than 2000 yards a season. The Packers dominated the run game during the 60s. He was a great play caller under the GOAT coach.

Favre's td to int ratio was 1.5. Starr's was 1.1

[Patler]

Career: 1,808 for 3,149 (57.4%), 24,718 yards, 7.8 YPA, 152 TD, 138 INT, 80.5 passer rating

Starr threw an average of 10 touchdown passes a season and threw for less than 2000 yards a season. The Packers dominated the run game during the 60s. He was a great play caller under the GOAT coach.

Favre's td to int ratio was 1.5. Starr's was 1.1

All true. Even so, at the time Starr played he was considered a very accurate passer, with a low interception rate. With the way DBs were allowed to mug receivers, it was a wonder that any passes were completed sometimes. You didn't see 3, 4 and 5 receivers on the field at the same time, with 40 man rosters they often only had 3 WRs in total on their roster. The RBs were quite involved in the passing game, but that shortened the typical completion length.

It was a rushing league then, not just the Packers. As a result, on average, teams had fewer plays per game than they do now, and a lot fewer pass plays. For all of Starr's career they played just 12 or 14 games per year. In Starr's 16 year career, the team played only 214 games.

Still more reasons why simply comparing stats from the game of the '60s to stats of today is virtually meaningless.

[pbmax]

All true. Even so, at the time Starr played he was considered a very accurate passer, with a low interception rate. With the way DBs were allowed to mug receivers, it was a wonder that any passes were completed sometimes. You didn't see 3, 4 and 5 receivers on the field at the same time, with 40 man rosters they often only had 3 WRs in total on their roster. The RBs were quite involved in the passing game, but that shortened the typical completion length.

It was a rushing league then, not just the Packers. As a result, on average, teams had fewer plays per game than they do now, and a lot fewer pass plays. For all of Starr's career they played just 12 or 14 games per year. In Starr's 16 year career, the team played only 214 games.

Still more reasons why simply comparing stats from the game of the '60s to stats of today is virtually meaningless.

Didn't the Packers running game decline significantly during Lombardi's tenure?

[Joemailman]

Didn't the Packers running game decline significantly during Lombardi's tenure?

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

[pbmax]

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

Clearly they weren't tough in 65 and 66. And they didn't have momentum either.

[Patler]

Many argued that anyone could have won with the Packers of '60-'63 or 64. In the glory days of Hornung, Taylor, Moore and Pitts the Packers just bullied their way down the field with the RBs carrying the load. Starr sort of had that "game manager" reputation that QBs get. After Hornung and Taylor were gone, Anderson was OK, but no Hornung. Grabowski was the heir-apparent to Taylor, and really showed promise at times, but knee injuries did him in. Travis Williams was there and gone in a flash, it seemed in the late '60s.

By the years of the '65, '66, '67 (and even after that, but Starr, too declined) the team went only as far as Starr could take it. When yards, first downs or scores were needed, Starr almost willed them down the field. Since he was calling all the plays, his stamp was on all of their success. They came to rely more on his passing in critical situations, with run success being more from deception/surprise, not power. Of course, the line was getting older too, and except for Gale Gillingham the influx of young players wasn't close to the Skoronski, Kramer, Gregg, Thurston mold.

[mraynrand]

The G.O.A.T, single-highhandedly might I add, beat the shit out of the FuckingNiners the first time he played them in the playoffs

Poor Fritz must be rolling in his grave . Keith Jackson, on the other hand, is probably having a good laugh.

[mraynrand]

Elway was a fantastic athlete, and he was a pretty damn good QB. He went to a shit load of Super Bowls and he was kind of the stand out, nobody else on those 1980s team really brought any attention besides Elway. He was gamer and I put him in my top 10 list of QBs.

unfortunately, he is top 5. Otto is #1.

[mraynrand]

comparing different eras is hard to do.

Breaking up, too.

[Patler]

1961 - 1st in NFL
1962 - 1st
1963 - 2nd
1964 - 1st
1965 - 10th
1966 - 8th
1967 - 2nd

1967 is a little deceiving. First, I think they were 2nd in what we now know as the NFC, not in the full league stats including AFL teams. Starr missed a couple games and played parts of a couple others. They ran because they had to, not because they were particularly good at it. It was even argued that they ran to keep games close by slowing it down, because the team was in noticeable decline. They had a succession of ball carriers, no body with even 500 yards. Ben Wilson was a god-send to them, after Grabowski got hurt, but no one had a particularly good season running the ball. Travis Williams was the only excitement, but he was a rookie and made his name returning kickoffs, with limited carries from scrimmage. Nobody worried about defending their running game.

That's one of the things that made the championship so pleasing that year. It was clear they were not one of the better team during the season. The Colts and Rams looked to be the class of the league, and everyone worried about the Cowboys who were the young upstarts with a load of young talent that was getting better and better.

[mraynrand]

Travis Williams was kinda like William Floyd for the 1994 Niners - a guy that joins a declining team as a rookie for their last hurrah, not realizing at the time that it's all downhill from there.

[Joemailman]

Starr was banged up in 1967, and had one of his worst years in the regular season, so they probably did run out of necessity. However, they did run more effectively in 1967 than in 1965-66, even if they did it with RB by committee. Didn't Gillingham replace Fuzzy as a starter in 1967? Perhaps they were better running the ball for that reason.

[Patler]

Starr was banged up in 1967, and had one of his worst years in the regular season, so they probably did run out of necessity. However, they did run more effectively in 1967 than in 1965-66, even if they did it with RB by committee. Didn't Gillingham replace Fuzzy as a starter in 1967? Perhaps they were better running the ball for that reason.

They may have been somewhat better in '67 than in '65-'66; but they were no where near the team of '60-'64 that could just pound the ball down the field. Everyone knew what was coming, but couldn't stop it. The Packers of '67, by and large, were not a team that could consistently drive the ball with just their running game. In the early '60s, that is exactly what they did.

Gillingham came and played a lot in '66, and became the full time starter in '67. You are right, he was an impressive blocker.

[Brandon494]

LMAO did you even watch any games this season with those grades? C- the QB with the highest QB rating?