Slater and Speedie

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby Andy Piascik » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:43 pm

It was partly a joke and partly a reference to the Green Bay teams of the 1960s. I was not big on Nitschke or Hornung as Hall of Famers and was surprised about Dave Robinson a few years back because I was not big on him, either. None is a terrible choice but all are borderline at best, in my opinion, with good cases that can be made against. There are now 13 players from those teams in the HOF and they won five championships. The 1940-46 Bears won four championships with far fewer HOFers, though now we unfortunately have to add Sprinkle to their total. The 1946-55 Browns won seven championships with fewer HOFers, but then we get into the whole AAFC debate again.

I know there's no hard and fast correlation between the number of HOFers and the number of championships. The 49ers of the 1950s are Exhibit A. But there's a mystique about the 1960s Packers that never seems to go away because they were the first football dynasty of the television era, the first of the NFL Films era, as well as for other reasons, and I think the guys mentioned above rode that mystique somewhat to the Hall of Fame.
Andy Piascik
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby Jeremy Crowhurst » Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:46 pm

It would be funny if the reason Pearson didn't get in was that there are already too many Cowboys. "Yeah, good kid, great hands, but we've got too many Cowboys from the 70's in there. Let's put in Donnie Shell instead."

PFR added a feature a few weeks ago, the "Hall of Fame Monitor". Obviously there's a big "whatever" factor to it, but it's worth noting where they have Carmichael relative to Harold Jackson, Pearson, and Del Shofner.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/hof/hofm_WR.htm
Jeremy Crowhurst
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:24 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby SixtiesFan » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:13 pm

Andy Piascik wrote:It was partly a joke and partly a reference to the Green Bay teams of the 1960s. I was not big on Nitschke or Hornung as Hall of Famers and was surprised about Dave Robinson a few years back because I was not big on him, either. None is a terrible choice but all are borderline at best, in my opinion, with good cases that can be made against. There are now 13 players from those teams in the HOF and they won five championships. The 1940-46 Bears won four championships with far fewer HOFers, though now we unfortunately have to add Sprinkle to their total. The 1946-55 Browns won seven championships with fewer HOFers, but then we get into the whole AAFC debate again.

I know there's no hard and fast correlation between the number of HOFers and the number of championships. The 49ers of the 1950s are Exhibit A. But there's a mystique about the 1960s Packers that never seems to go away because they were the first football dynasty of the television era, the first of the NFL Films era, as well as for other reasons, and I think the guys mentioned above rode that mystique somewhat to the Hall of Fame.


That hits the nail on the head; The Packers were the first dynasty of the TV era. I got a subscription to Sport Magazine for Christmas in 1960. Early in 1961, Sport announced they would have a story on pro football every month. I think every Packer starter of the 1961-62 teams except for a handful got profiled in Sport Magazine, which with Sports Illustrated were the national sports magazines of the era.

Speaking of Hornung, I recall a piece on his failure to make the HOF in Football Digest magazine around 1984-85. The writer had been a Packers beat writer when Hornung played. He wrote something like: "It makes no sense for Hugh McElhenny and Lenny Moore to be in the hall of fame and Paul Hornung not. Neither McElhenny or Moore meant as much to their teams as Hornung meant to the Packers."

Well, you could flip that around. How big a star would McElhenny or Moore have been if they had played at their peak for the 60's Packers?
SixtiesFan
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby rhickok1109 » Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:55 am

Andy Piascik wrote:It was partly a joke and partly a reference to the Green Bay teams of the 1960s. I was not big on Nitschke or Hornung as Hall of Famers and was surprised about Dave Robinson a few years back because I was not big on him, either. None is a terrible choice but all are borderline at best, in my opinion, with good cases that can be made against. There are now 13 players from those teams in the HOF and they won five championships. The 1940-46 Bears won four championships with far fewer HOFers, though now we unfortunately have to add Sprinkle to their total. The 1946-55 Browns won seven championships with fewer HOFers, but then we get into the whole AAFC debate again.

I know there's no hard and fast correlation between the number of HOFers and the number of championships. The 49ers of the 1950s are Exhibit A. But there's a mystique about the 1960s Packers that never seems to go away because they were the first football dynasty of the television era, the first of the NFL Films era, as well as for other reasons, and I think the guys mentioned above rode that mystique somewhat to the Hall of Fame.

Bear (no pun intended) mind that the Bears of 1940-46 played one-platoon football, so they essentially had only half as many starters and therefore HOF candidates as the Packers of the 1960s.
rhickok1109
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby Andy Piascik » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:30 pm

rhickok1109 wrote:Bear (no pun intended) mind that the Bears of 1940-46 played one-platoon football, so they essentially had only half as many starters and therefore HOF candidates as the Packers of the 1960s.


Good point.
Andy Piascik
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby DukeSlater » Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:40 pm

I think Dilweg should have been selected before Sprinkle.

Even though I love Covert, I cannot see him being chosen ahead of other OT’s (and other positions).

To me, Winston Hill belongs.....
DukeSlater
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:19 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby Bryan » Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:14 am

SixtiesFan wrote:Well, you could flip that around. How big a star would McElhenny or Moore have been if they had played at their peak for the 60's Packers?


McElhenny and Moore were nowhere near the blockers that Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were. The Packers offense would have been completely different if you switched out the RBs, and probably not any better, IMO.
User avatar
Bryan
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby rhickok1109 » Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:12 pm

Bryan wrote:
SixtiesFan wrote:Well, you could flip that around. How big a star would McElhenny or Moore have been if they had played at their peak for the 60's Packers?


McElhenny and Moore were nowhere near the blockers that Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were. The Packers offense would have been completely different if you switched out the RBs, and probably not any better, IMO.

That's a very good point. The famous power sweep called for the FB to block the LDE after faking into the line. Hornung usually carried the ball with Taylor making that block. It was a key block and other teams that tried to duplicate the sweep couldn't do it that way because they didn't have a FB who could block the DE.

While the power (strongside) sweep was the Packers' bread and butter play, the weakside sweep was the run that often broke for long yardage. On that sweep, Taylor usually carried the ball and Hornung had to block the RDE. In 1961 and 1962, when Hornung was blocking for him on the weakside sweep, Taylor averaged 5.4 yards a carry. When Hornung missed the 1963 season because of his suspension, Taylor's YPC dropped to 4.1. When Hornung returned in 1964, the YPC jumped up to 5.0.

Neither Moore nor McElhenny would have been effective blockers on either of the sweeps.
rhickok1109
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby SixtiesFan » Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:18 pm

Bryan wrote:
SixtiesFan wrote:Well, you could flip that around. How big a star would McElhenny or Moore have been if they had played at their peak for the 60's Packers?


McElhenny and Moore were nowhere near the blockers that Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung were. The Packers offense would have been completely different if you switched out the RBs, and probably not any better, IMO.


Speaking of Jim Taylor, assuming his first year of HOF eligibility was 1973, it took four tries for him to make the Hall. I think he should have gone in the first time.

When he was announced as being elected, long-time Sporting News columnist Bob Oates disapproved of Jim Taylor's enshrinement. Oates wrote something like "Other fullbacks would have made the HOF if they had the blocking Taylor had at Green Bay." This may be why it took Jim Taylor four years of eligibility to make it.

I very much disagree with Oates. As pointed out above, Jim Taylor made the Packer system work. Jim Brown also came into the ideal spot for his talent with Paul Brown's system.

I should have said "showy" runners like McElhenny and Moore make the HOF.
SixtiesFan
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Postby TanksAndSpartans » Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:57 pm

McElhenny blocked for Perry. Like Hornung, there was a good running FB on his team as well. Given the choice, I'd take McElhenny.
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CraigRye and 29 guests

cron